question for Religion

[Brother No. 1]

Comrades if there was a "god" then where was he during the depperesions and wars of humanity. where was he when the entire European countinant called for him to save them from the Plague, world war 1 and 2, where was he when the Great depperesion ocured so comrades why do they belive in him so much but they dont realize he doesnt come

[Dóchas]

why should he fix up our screw ups?

[Brother No. 1]

true just asking why do they belive he will come to save them when they dont realize they can save themselfs

[revolution inaction]

Maybe he wants us to suffer?

[Dóchas]

because usually people lose hope before the problem is resolved

[Brother No. 1]

well maybe dont know not much religous myself

[AtteroDominatus]

He does nothing because it is man's faults problems arise. If you help people all the time, they will become solely defendant on that person. A good example is when someone is poor and goes to a homeless shelter. People who get everything they need from a homeless shelter don't often feel the need to do more. Even if their life is not perfect, things are provided for them, so why should they try hard? I agree it's not the perfect example, but it reflects my point.

As a catholic, I believe God doesn't come down to fix the problem himself because people would become too dependent on Him. What would be the point to try if God fixes everything for them? What would it matter if no matter what they did, someone else would be their to clean up their problems/ So, I believe God doesn't because he knows how people are in this time. So he gives other people the power to change it. It is our job to watch over His world. We must clean the messes we make up ourselves.

Yes, I agree it is sad when things happen. And I often find myself asking where is my so called God. Why was he not there during the Holocaust? Or The attack on Georgia? Or now when students are suffering in Greece? Or even when people are suffering everyday over in third world countries? Is this MY God? It's hard sometimes. But I don't like people trying to blame God for not helping us. Sometimes, it gets discouraging He lets things like this happen in the world. All the unpunished injustices and corruption. Yet, though he is God, I believe he sends us to do things for ourselves. Still, I can't claim to be right, I'm not God after all.

[Brother No. 1]

but also comrade can you tell me why he did not help us

[Dóchas]

because if he helped us all the time we would become to reliant on him and we wouldnt really achieve anything. i bet atterodominatus can answer this better they seem to be more learned in this area

[Brother No. 1]

true so now I understand

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

but also comrade can you tell me why he did not help us

The general trend is to think we are currently entering the last days and are creating a god-less, selfish, evil, and disgusting society. Then hoping, of course, that god or whatever intervenes eventually.

[AtteroDominatus]

To where exactly are you referring to?
If there is a God, the fact the economy is collapsing may in itself be a gift from God to help us work our way back into society as a way. We are being given the opportunity. Things don't happen right away all the time. Things take time, and people are reluctant to change without reason.

If you're referring to your first post, as I said, I believe it is His way of showing us that it is our job to take care of ourselves. He is still here, working in the hands of people, giving us chances to help others and ourselves. Sadly, a lot of places dedicated to doing things like reaching out are corrupted. such as the old Catholic Church. If some omnipresent being came down during WW2 and stopped all the fighting, people would think later if they get themselves into a mess that it would be worked out. I think this is His way of teaching us we need to care for each other. Even if people are still selfish nowadays, things may soon change. Remember, for people who believe in God, or at least Catholicism, he is everywhere, at everyplace, and every time at once. So he sees the outcome. So maybe what happened, though awful, will help in the end cause.

[Brother No. 1]

and besides if they say jesus waa a Capitalist they are wrong he was infact if we add the facts he was a Communist

[AtteroDominatus]

It's funny, if you compare anything to communism nowadays people get upset. But what many people don't realize is that Communism and Religions often have much of the same ideology. Care for one another, don't value material possession,s work for the greater good, be selfless, etc. But people try to apply these ideologies to other things, as well, which is what makes much religion so corrupt nowadays. Narrow mindedness is a disease, even among the religious.

[Dóchas]

and besides if they say jesus waa a Capitalist they are wrong he was infact if we add the facts he was a Communist

the proof is in my signature :thumbup:

[Brother No. 1]

as jesus said we must love one another for who we are and stop fighting but it seems that his wish was not forfilled yet

[AtteroDominatus]

Indeed it is so. Many people follow his teachings as a net, though. they call themselves religious but they practice nothing of it. It's more just a card to them, a fallback in case he does exist. Religion over in places like China are a way of life. In many places, like the US, it's just a part of it.

[Brother No. 1]

in the US things are different like the gangs they have created their own religions can you belive that and Religion in the US it is more like a holiday over here and it makes me sick

[AtteroDominatus]

like a holiday, how so?

[Brother No. 1]

like people dont care for its meaning they just want the money and to buy more stuff for their full houses in here it is a nightmare everyday

[Dhul Fiqar]

God needs vacations like everyone else. He was on sabbatical from 1939 to 1945 for example. Oh, wait, no. He's fictional.

[AtteroDominatus]

@Polish: ahhaha, yes, i agree. Amen to that, comrade. I live in the Us, I know what it's like.

@Dhul: Please don't go bashing the fact whether he exists or not, this isn't the place to do it. I'm sure there are threads around the OI where you can agree with the thousands of comrades who believe God doesn't exist.

[Brother No. 1]

so we all agree that religion and communsim can and probaley live side by side

[AtteroDominatus]

Of course, I've never doubted that.

[Brother No. 1]

who knows maybe god is simling on what we are doing comrade what we are talking about

[Dhul Fiqar]

That has always been self evident, imho. One thing people often do is chop up the opium of the masses quote, all I ask is that people at least read the whole thing to even begin to analyze what was meant by it:



Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

[Dhul Fiqar]

To clarify what I personally believe is meant by that passage: in post-revolutionary society religion is basically irrelevant because it no longer serves a clear purpose nor is it detrimental to any purpose. The prediction being that it will eventually fade away with injustice, but nothing there seems to indicate anything being gained by eliminating it by force.

Much like participation in capitalism by the working class, Marx saw participation in religion by the working class as a natural and expected step on the way to liberation. A human response to an inhumane situation. What happens post-revolution is an unanswered question but I would argue that he firmly predicts it to be a non-issue.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not all "evil" is caused by humans. Natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, and what have you. So to say that God doesn't intervene because he wants us to deal with our own problems is a cop-out.

So even if there was proof of his existance, why would one worship a being that could be at best neglectful and at worst actively malicious?

It just doesn't make sense.

[Brother No. 1]

Well i belive in god is that a problem

[Bud Struggle]

To clarify what I personally believe is meant by that passage: in post-revolutionary society religion is basically irrelevant because it no longer serves a clear purpose nor is it detrimental to any purpose. The prediction being that it will eventually fade away with injustice, but nothing there seems to indicate anything being gained by eliminating it by force.

On the other hand one could also say that in the post Soviet Union-China society that Communism has become basicly irrelevent to the greater part of the world and no longer serves a clear purpose.

Socialism HAS faded away and it wasn't eliminated by force at all.

[AtteroDominatus]

@NoXion: I know, that's an argument many people come up with. It's not our fault tidal waves destroy docks, or hurricanes wipe out places like New Orleans. with things like this, it's hard to believe there is a loving god people would want to worship. All I can say is God created this world for us. He doesn't cause the natural disasters, just as he doesn't cause people to be violent towards one another.

I don't have many good arguments for that other than this world is not perfect and shit happens.

[not_of_this_world]

Your question is a typical question about God and it is the most basic and easily answered so I will field this one as having taught religion. The concept of God is based on faith to begin with and yee of little or no faith should not concern yourself with my answer or God. God gives man freedom to do as he wishes, free to do evil or good acts included so it is no wonder there is havoc, disease, and mayhem in the world. Man has a a free will and God does not control that which man does, man controls his own destiny.

[Brother No. 1]

Yes thats true god created man but does not control man

[danyboy27]

He does nothing because it is man's faults problems arise. If you help people all the time, they will become solely defendant on that person. A good example is when someone is poor and goes to a homeless shelter. People who get everything they need from a homeless shelter don't often feel the need to do more. Even if their life is not perfect, things are provided for them, so why should they try hard? I agree it's not the perfect example, but it reflects my point.

As a catholic, I believe God doesn't come down to fix the problem himself because people would become too dependent on Him. What would be the point to try if God fixes everything for them? What would it matter if no matter what they did, someone else would be their to clean up their problems/ So, I believe God doesn't because he knows how people are in this time. So he gives other people the power to change it. It is our job to watch over His world. We must clean the messes we make up ourselves.

Yes, I agree it is sad when things happen. And I often find myself asking where is my so called God. Why was he not there during the Holocaust? Or The attack on Georgia? Or now when students are suffering in Greece? Or even when people are suffering everyday over in third world countries? Is this MY God? It's hard sometimes. But I don't like people trying to blame God for not helping us. Sometimes, it gets discouraging He lets things like this happen in the world. All the unpunished injustices and corruption. Yet, though he is God, I believe he sends us to do things for ourselves. Still, I can't claim to be right, I'm not God after all.

seriously, you made me believe in god again. i never seen god on this point of view but it does make sense to me. now dont try to make me believe god created earth in 7 day and jonas lived in a whale for 3 day and we should get along fine.

[Dhul Fiqar]

He made you believe in God again? That was easy. Will you change your mind for 20 bucks? ;)

[danyboy27]

He made you believe in God again? That was easy. Will you change your mind for 20 bucks? ;)

well, i am really receptive to the idea of people who respect me has i am, and dont try to force me some stupid bullshit they think they are right.

the more you insult me and the less i will listen you, the more agressive your stance his, the less i will be tempted to believe you.

btw dhul, stop that patronizing bullshit. tanks.

[AtteroDominatus]

@spet: idk if i believe everything. whale story is kinda far fetched :P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

@NoXion: I know, that's an argument many people come up with. It's not our fault tidal waves destroy docks, or hurricanes wipe out places like New Orleans. with things like this, it's hard to believe there is a loving god people would want to worship. All I can say is God created this world for us. He doesn't cause the natural disasters, just as he doesn't cause people to be violent towards one another.

He did however, allegedly create a universe in which such disasters happen. In fact, the universe is manifestly indifferent to the fate of the human species and the individuals within it.


I don't have many good arguments for that other than this world is not perfect and shit happens.

Why would an allegedly "perfect" being create an "imperfect" world? There are only four possibilities I can think of:

The Godless Universe - The being in question doesn't exist, therefore there's no point in worshipping it or otherwise acknowledging the concept except to criticise it.

The Ignorant God - God exists, but isn't aware of human existance, therefore worshipping it is an exercise in futility.

The Neglectful God - It exists and is aware of our existance, but for whatever reason doesn't care about us. Therefore there's no point worshipping it.

The Evil God - It exists and is aware of our existance, and deliberately created a world in which sapient beings can suffer undeservedly, making it actively malicious and thus unworthy of respect, let alone worship.

[AtteroDominatus]

you forgot
The Caring God - the God that cares greatly for humanity and created them on a nearly perfect world but gave them the chance to make their decisions. And he gives us the means to do things so we can make our world a better place.

People are always happier when they do things themselves. If God just fixed everything for us, where would our sense of fulfillment be in the end when everything is better? Half the joy of being human is being able to make the world around you better, not have it perfected against every time things mess up. Sure, the world is not the best place right now, but with the current downfall of economy, is not he finally giving his creations the chance to DO something? It may have taken awhile, but do you not agree people need to experience before they can know the outcome that the world requires? If not, then think, how would people view communism if it was forced upon them by the soviet union if it took control of other nations? Now, people have the chance to go to it. And people are more willing to accept things when they freely go that way, not when they are forced or allowed to by a higher power, be it the Soviets, God, or a president.

[Jazzratt]

you forgot
The Caring God - the God that cares greatly for humanity and created them on a nearly perfect world but gave them the chance to make their decisions. And he gives us the means to do things so we can make our world a better place.

Caring god? It's a completely fucking farcical to describe the God of the bible as caring and even more so to look at the world and assume a benevolent entity watching it all and choosing not to act because it makes us happier.


People are always happier when they do things themselves.

People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Kashmir_earthquake)are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake)even (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompeii)happier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931_Huang_He_flood)when (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780)they (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina)aren't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_hemorrhagic_fever) dying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS)in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Ancash_earthquake)their (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangiwai_disaster)thousands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Nina_%281975%29).


If God just fixed everything for us, where would our sense of fulfillment be in the end when everything is better? Half the joy of being human is being able to make the world around you better, not have it perfected against every time things mess up. Sure, the world is not the best place right now, but with the current downfall of economy, is not he finally giving his creations the chance to DO something?

So god is a sadistic achievement-orientated parent figure that wishes to push its children quite clearly beyond their capabilities either because it is dense (believes people like nothing more than mortal peril and crushing despair) in which case it isn't omniscient or because it wants to see what people are capable of under pressure; in which case it is not caring but simply mechanistically interested in humanity which makes it unworthy of worship.

Also it's odd you should mention the financial crisis - if that had God's hand in it why not the economic collapses of the past which have created war and misery or, even more directly, in the wars themselves. If God has a hand in hedge funds, inflation and other human guided things why not in guns and bombs?


It may have taken awhile, but do you not agree people need to experience before they can know the outcome that the world requires?

But this is because we are not omnipotent beings. We are simply (by your philosophy) the experimental playthings of one such being. So yes, I agree we need to apply our ideas before we know them to be correct but I do not see this as virtuous - simply necessary.


If not, then think, how would people view communism if it was forced upon them by the soviet union if it took control of other nations? Now, people have the chance to go to it. And people are more willing to accept things when they freely go that way, not when they are forced or allowed to by a higher power, be it the Soviets, God, or a president.

I imagine that if the revolution could take place bloodlessly and instantly (as if some kind of all powerful, all knowing and all loving being were orchestrating it, rather than it being the culmination of struggle between classes) then their would be no reason to oppose it and therefore no opposition. Perhaps it is your masochistic mindset which has created the sadist god, though.

[Bud Struggle]

The Caring God - the God that cares greatly for humanity and created them on a nearly perfect world but gave them the chance to make their decisions. And he gives us the means to do things so we can make our world a better place.

I can't agree with you more.

Some good posts here AD. :thumbup:

Merry Christmas!

Tom

[AtteroDominatus]

@Jazzrat: Nothing I can say will ever change your opinions. Because, you have pre set opinions you already view. You already view God, if He exists, as a pain loving sadistic creature. And no matter what I say, you're going to tell me I am wrong just because you want to blame everythign on God, if there is one. you're one of the people, from what i see, who uses every excuse to bring other people's ideologies down just because they believe differently than you. If you want, you can just say 'I win this arguement' because you will never change how you see it, jsut as I will not change how I see it.

@Tom: Merry Christmas to you, too :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

you forgot
The Caring God - the God that cares greatly for humanity and created them on a nearly perfect world but gave them the chance to make their decisions. And he gives us the means to do things so we can make our world a better place.

In other words, The Impotent God. Because as the litany of disaster not just in human history but also in natural history tells us, this "caring god" has been singularly unforthcoming.


People are always happier when they do things themselves. If God just fixed everything for us, where would our sense of fulfillment be in the end when everything is better? Half the joy of being human is being able to make the world around you better, not have it perfected against every time things mess up.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't wash. Not all the world's problems are natural disasters so if they were to suddenly never happen again we would still have plenty of work to do.

Not to mention that most of the time there is absolutely fuck-all we can do about natural disasters, sometimes we get a warning and sometimes we don't, but even if we do get a warning that doesn't mean we can do anything to mitigate it's effects - for example, we have yet to implement any kind of defence against asteroids.

What's the "joy" in that?


Sure, the world is not the best place right now, but with the current downfall of economy, is not he finally giving his creations the chance to DO something?

So your god is a sadist. All stick and no carrot.


It may have taken awhile, but do you not agree people need to experience before they can know the outcome that the world requires?

What has that got to do with events outside human control?


If not, then think, how would people view communism if it was forced upon them by the soviet union if it took control of other nations? Now, people have the chance to go to it. And people are more willing to accept things when they freely go that way, not when they are forced or allowed to by a higher power, be it the Soviets, God, or a president.

You are talking politics. I was talking of the distressing tendency for humans to die of natural causes through no fault of their own.

[Dhul Fiqar]

well, i am really receptive to the idea of people who respect me has i am, and dont try to force me some stupid bullshit they think they are right.

the more you insult me and the less i will listen you, the more agressive your stance his, the less i will be tempted to believe you.

btw dhul, stop that patronizing bullshit. tanks.

I'm sincerely sorry if I insulted you, I was clearly being patronising, albeit in a joking manner and no ill will was intended. I just find it rather odd that such a fundamental belief could be shifted by a convincing post on a message board, I'm not quite sure that that does to my worldview to be absolutely honest.

[Guerrilla22]

This pretty much sums up religion; you'll suffer immensely in a burning hell, unless you recognize god's infinite love.

[AtteroDominatus]

Where was that said?
I don't believe in that at all. that's just a stupid fear tactic used to make people believe. If people are evil, cruel, that's he only time i think they'd go to hell. not because they don't believe, that's stupid. that's a major part i don't agree with in religions.

[Guerrilla22]

That's pretty much the idea, no? If god is this all loving super being, that is above all humans, then why wouldn't she allow everyone into heaven?

[AtteroDominatus]

the only people i think don't go are the people who are evil and have no intention of ever wanting to change. God says if we are sorry, we are forgiven. However, this is not 'repent or die' because there will no doubt be things we did wrong that we are not sorry about because we believe we were justified. Those who have killed, etc, know it was wrong, and don't care, those are the ones i think are not welcome because God would have to change their thoughts completely to allow them into heaven, and it's our choice and free will which decide if we will be destined for it.

Religions are misguided, in that, they think people will be condemned to hell for not believing. That people should pray for those who do not believe to be saved. Why? Just because they don't believe the same they go to hell? I don't claim to agree with that aspect of religion. I choose to believe, from what I see and have learned, that even if the world is often a bad place and causes pain, that there is a happy ending to this world, and that everyone has a chance to get in, not just one faith.

[Bud Struggle]

Religions are misguided, in that, they think people will be condemned to hell for not believing. That people should pray for those who do not believe to be saved. Why? Just because they don't believe the same they go to hell? I don't claim to agree with that aspect of religion. I choose to believe, from what I see and have learned, that even if the world is often a bad place and causes pain, that there is a happy ending to this world, and that everyone has a chance to get in, not just one faith.

Amen, Sister! :thumbup:

[mikelepore]

I think the main logic problem of religion is its abrupt leap from the most general to the most specific. Most religious people tell others that they believe in God because they feel there must be "some kind of" creative agency or power which initialized the universe. Then they jump directly to assuming a highly specific dogma that requires people to go to a certain building on a certain day and recite certain verses while wearing certain clothing and eating certain food. The leap is made directly from all mystery to no mystery, from having no answers to having all answers. A better example of non sequitur will we not find.

[AtteroDominatus]

People also choose to believe in other strange things. I believe the universe was created by God, but that he started the process, somehow, of science that made everything come together. the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, and because of that there are different versions hence different religions. I, personally, believe in a God because i believe there is a higher being at work out there. Not because I want a reason for the world to be created. some people go to faith out of fear, others for reasoning, other for spirituality, and other things. I go not just for reasoning, but for my spirituality. Whether people believe in God or not, spirits or not, souls or not, we agree we can think, make conscious decisions. And, we have emotions. I link emotions to spirituality, strange as it seems. And I believe in God not so i have a reason why the universe exists, but because it makes me feel better for some reason, it appeals to my emotions. Also, even though some people are narrow minded in their teachings, it is nice to see people come together, and the ideology behind people all being God's children-equally loved and important in the world where people are always given a value based on society's norm-and not just consumers or money makers. Plus, churches do a lot to help people, so if something can bring people together for the greater good, it's pretty okay by me :)

[mikelepore]

And I believe in God not so i have a reason why the universe exists, but because it makes me feel better for some reason, it appeals to my emotions.

The words "believe" and "makes me feel better" should be recognized to be totally incompatable.

This kind of logical fallacy is called the argument from consequences. It is to say that a proposition must be true because it would be beneficial, enjoyable, gratifying, etc. if it were true.

I separate my wishes from my beliefs. For example, I _wish_ that there existed an afterlife where I will be rejoined with my loved ones who are dead. But is there even the slightest evidence to indicate that this hypothesis is true? None whatsoever.

Why is it so difficult for many people to distinguish between their wishes and their beliefs?

Peter Pan lied. Jiminy Cricket lied. Wishing for something doesn't make it come true.

[StalinFanboy]

Where was that said?
I don't believe in that at all. that's just a stupid fear tactic used to make people believe. If people are evil, cruel, that's he only time i think they'd go to hell. not because they don't believe, that's stupid. that's a major part i don't agree with in religions.
For God so loved the world that he sent his only son, and whoever believes in him will have eternal life.

[AtteroDominatus]

Yes, but wishes are how people make things become true. I'm sketchy on the Afterlife, but prove to me it does not exist. I cannot prove it does, just as you cannot prove to me it does not.

@bring it: yes, but Jesus also loved all the people, from the sinners, the the lepurs, and the tax collectors. He was not just targeting one group of beliefs or ideals, he was dying for everyone. the bible has many conflicting things in it. and maybe, by eternal life, they didn't mean an afterlife, they meant they will be remembered in history. God spoke in riddles a lot. Yes, the afterlife was mentioned, but who says that was pertaining to it. anyway, God loves all his creations, I don't think he would favor one over another. some of the best people are not relligious. I refuse to think a god would pick one group over another when there are jsut as many very nice, moral, and giving people elsewhere.

[revolution inaction]

Yes, but wishes are how people make things become true. I'm sketchy on the Afterlife, but prove to me it does not exist. I cannot prove it does, just as you cannot prove to me it does not.

prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

http://airstripone.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/flying-spaghetti-monster.jpg

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Not all "evil" is caused by humans. Natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, and what have you. So to say that God doesn't intervene because he wants us to deal with our own problems is a cop-out.

So even if there was proof of his existance, why would one worship a being that could be at best neglectful and at worst actively malicious?

It just doesn't make sense.
Even if they're not our fault, they're still our problems.

[casper]

you forgot
The Caring God - the God that cares greatly for humanity and created them on a nearly perfect world but gave them the chance to make their decisions. And he gives us the means to do things so we can make our world a better place.


thats dependent on the concept of "free will" which doesn't make sense on its own, and makes even less sense when its intermingled with the usual attributes of the Christan god




This kind of logical fallacy is called the argument from consequences. It is to say that a proposition must be true because it would be beneficial, enjoyable, gratifying, etc. if it were true.

I

many people make that fallacy. actually, way to many people... like, most people actually.


the bible isn't meant to be taken literally
i agree. i think too many people don't use enough of their imaginations.


I believe in God not so i have a reason why the universe exists, but because it makes me feel better for some reason, it appeals to my emotions. Also, even though some people are narrow minded in their teachings, it is nice to see people come together, and the ideology behind people all being God's children-equally loved and important in the world where people are always given a value based on society's norm-and not just consumers or money makers. Plus, churches do a lot to help people, so if something can bring people together for the greater good, it's pretty okay by me :)

thank you for your honesty, i find it rare that when asked(or not asked), a believer will tell you the truth on the question of why they believe in such a self-honest and straightforward answer as what you have given. most people say something to the equivalent of "because i say so".

[AtteroDominatus]

thats dependent on the concept of "free will" which doesn't make sense on its own, and makes even less sense when its intermingled with the usual attributes of the Christan god
I say, I'm a bit unsure of this one, too. If God is loving, why would he even give us free will to make mistakes? Personally, I don't know, and I don't think anyone really knows. All I can think is that because he didn't expect us to be perfect? Wanted us to make our own decisions and see if we'd do what's right? I don't think anyone's been able to figure this one out.



i agree. i think too many people don't use enough of their imaginations.
Your sarcasm really isn't appreciated. I'm aware that people have dozens, if not hundreds, of interpretations. The problem is, people will see something and look at it one way while another person looks at it another way and sees something else. People are different, it's how the world works, for better and worse. Problem is, it just isn't written in a specific manner, it has contradictions within it (though these are mostly between the old and new testament), and it had riddles in it and it can be seen in different lights.




thank you for your honesty, i find it rare that when asked(or not asked), a believer will tell you the truth on the question of why they believe in such a self-honest and straightforward answer as what you have given. most people say something to the equivalent of "because i say so".I think people should have to explain things, even if their answer is not the best. People soemtimes use the ebcause i believe/say so answer because they have none, or it sounds stupid to the. Agreed, my reason probablly isn't the best, but it's my reason so I have no defence agaisnt not saying so. If more people were honest, it would make the world a better place.

[casper]

Your sarcasm really isn't appreciated. I'm aware that people have dozens, if not hundreds, of interpretations. The problem is, people will see something and look at it one way while another person looks at it another way and sees something else. People are different, it's how the world works, for better and worse. Problem is, it just isn't written in a specific manner, it has contradictions within it (though these are mostly between the old and new testament), and it had riddles in it and it can be seen in different lights.

i didn't mean to come across as sarcastic, i really think too many people just listen to the preacher and don't use enough of their questioning utility because the preacher for the most part gives them answers they want/need to hear. the multiple ways of interpretation and contradictions are signs themselfs, at least to me, and with a little imagination and questioning might lead to other teachings


If more people were honest, it would make the world a better place. i agree.

[mikelepore]

I'm sketchy on the Afterlife, but prove to me it does not exist. I cannot prove it does, just as you cannot prove to me it does not.

Ordinarily, we expect one degree of proof after hearing a claim that has a basis in everyday experience, and another degree of proof after hearing a claim that doesn't have any basis in everyday experience.

You probably wouldn't demand much proof before believing me if I said that I once saw an animal in my back yard and it was a dog. However, you would require a considerable kind of proof before believing me if I said that that I once saw an animal in my back yard and it was a fire-breathing dragon.

One claim corresponds to everyone's normal observations and the other doesn't.

Which, the religious believer or the doubter, is the person who is making an assertion that corresponds to normal life, and which makes an assertion that has no similarity to normal life?

In my opinion, religious beliefs, consisting of statements about the existence and characteristics of proposed things that are undetectable by any senses, instruments or methods, are of the kind that have no foundation in everyday experiences, but instead are inconsistent with our experiences.

However, it is also true that burden of proof depends on the intention to persuade. In practical terms, the burden of proof falls on anyone who desires to persuade someone else. If you and I don't intend to persuade each other, then neither one of us has to prove anything.

But when I was a child my parents did attempt to persuade me of the existence of an invisible magic fairy named God who lives in an invisible location called Heaven. I judged their case to be unpersuasive.

[AtteroDominatus]

Well, I've never had a near life death experience. But I've known people who did. My mother is a nurse and she's worked with quite a few patients. In Georgia (the US state not the one in Europe) she had a patient who had been clinically dead for over half an hour. The doctors had given up on trying tor revive him, but after they declared him legally dead he suddenly had a heartbeat again. He told my mom of a place he went to where there were all these beautiful flowers, and there was a sense of peace. He said he saw people there he had known but a shining light told him it was not his time, yet. He pleaded with it, but it pulled him back to heaven. Needless to say,none of the doctors believed him but agreed the fact he was alive was a miracle.

Experiences like these are all I can really offer, though it does seem far fetched and I realy don't expect people to believe them. another reason I believe, though, is because spirits and ghosts. Some events happen that not even science can explain, like encounters with ghosts. Yes, many of these are made up, but there are some that seem too well witnessed to be true. I'll look for some links later to try and find some convincing ghost encounters. But for that, even if there is no heaven or hell, i believe someone can live on after their mortal body has ceased to be suitable for sustaining their existence.

[Jazzratt]

@Jazzrat: Nothing I can say will ever change your opinions. Because, you have pre set opinions you already view.

Short of coming up with a new argument or wheeling in some evidence, no. However if you did manage to make a convincing argument my opinion would change this is called "intellectual honesty" it occurs amongst atheists. Having preconceived opinions is unavoidable in arguments the point is for one side to change and/or challenge those of the other side.


You already view God, if He exists, as a pain loving sadistic creature.

No. That's your conception, the most likely god I could see existing does not care at all either because the universe as a fascinating whole holds more interest and we are boring or because it doesn't bother to check this little ball of rock for life. You're the one who imagines your god as a sadistic paternal figure.


And no matter what I say, you're going to tell me I am wrong just because you want to blame everythign on God, if there is one.

Your lot started that I believe, when they "blamed" God for all the glory of the world around us, when they "blamed" God for inspiring beauty and when they "blamed" it for inspiring artists, musicians and poets to create splendid works. To "blame" god for that and not blame him for the floods, volcanos, mudslides, landslides, blizzards, tidal waves, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, storms, waterspouts, avalanches, hailstorms, plagues, diseases and droughts (I'm sure there are others I missed) seems to me, at least, to be trying to have you cake and eat it too.


you're one of the people, from what i see, who uses every excuse to bring other people's ideologies down just because they believe differently than you.

This is called "disagreeing" and "putting ones view forward" if you don't like it I suggest you grow up.


If you want, you can just say 'I win this arguement' because you will never change how you see it, jsut as I will not change how I see it.

It's telling you assume that because I do not hold back in my argument you assume I am as blindly faithful as you are. Also, throughout your previous sentences you have been presenting my (percieved) inability to change my view as a shortcoming, a weakness, a failing in fact so why do you choose to admit to this flaw yourself at the very end ("jsut[sic] as I will not change how I see it")?

[Rangi]

I think Jesus would have been a communist. I do not believe that there is a God.

Only humans can save themselves from themselves. People who believe in an afterlife have proved to me again and again that they are willing to do crazy things to earn themselves merit points in the next world.

I was baptised and raised Catholic so I suppose I do have an axe to grind.

[AtteroDominatus]

That's your conception, the most likely god I could see existing does not care at all either because the universe as a fascinating whole holds more interest and we are boring or because it doesn't bother to check this little ball of rock for life. You're the one who imagines your god as a sadistic paternal figure.
Then, what about this that you posted earlier?
So god is a sadistic achievement-orientated parent figure that wishes to push its children quite clearly beyond their capabilities either because it is dense (believes people like nothing more than mortal peril and crushing despair) in which case it isn't omniscient or because it wants to see what people are capable of under pressure; in which case it is not caring but simply mechanistically interested in humanity which makes it unworthy of worship.
Agreed, it was a response to mine. But you were doing the same thing I was, and that's assuming. I thought from that you meant you believed he was sadistic. I see, t'was only a response to mine. Either way, I never said he had a hand in all the bad things that happen.


Your lot started that I believe, when they "blamed" God for all the glory of the world around us, when they "blamed" God for inspiring beauty and when they "blamed" it for inspiring artists etc etc
I meant people shouldn't blame him for all the problems of the world. and before you pull a 'you can't just blame him for the good things and ignore the bad', yes, God created things on this planet that could hurt us. But this is our planet now. We were given it to protect it, and take care of it. So that means dealing with things that aren't the best. So a way, ys, I guess he is responsible for the good and the bad, but think about it. don't bad things often bring people together? I'm not saying this was his intention, but they do. When tragedies strike, nations come together to help one another. When a common enemy (crisis in this case) rears its head, people get up and fight and help one another when they would normally not consider working together in any other event. I'm not saying this justifies the deaths of people, as I wish people wouldn't have to die for others to get along.


This is called "disagreeing" and "putting ones view forward"
No, it's called being an ass and insulting people. There are ways of disagreeing without insulting them. True, I jsut did it, but that's because no matter where I see you argue you demean the other person. Debating should be about knowledge VS knowledge not taunt and criticize and mix knowledge within. And granted, you probably are smarter than me, I never claimed to be, but at least act it if you are going to expect it from me, too.


I do not hold back in my argument you assume I am as blindly faithful as you are.
Blindly faithful. Oh yeah. because that is TOTALLY what I am when I consider all the sides of the arguement, which is what I have been doing. Please refer to my other posts. I'm nto following my god screaming ALLA AKBAHR as i blow myself to bloody smitherines, nor would I if it was said I needed to serve God by killing others. I know the difference between right and wrong, between somethign completely unbelievable and somethign plausible, and i base my beliefs off my veiws and adjust some of mine that aren't as good.

@Rangi: Only humans can save themselves from themselves. People who believe in an afterlife have proved to me again and again that they are willing to do crazy things to earn themselves merit points in the next world.

what sorts of things? There's only so far I would go, because there begins to come a level where its beyond faith and just following blinldy and willingly in order to please someone to get to the heaven side of the Afterlife.

[Jazzratt]

Then, what about this that you posted earlier?

Agreed, it was a response to mine. But you were doing the same thing I was, and that's assuming. I thought from that you meant you believed he was sadistic. I see, t'was only a response to mine. Either way, I never said he had a hand in all the bad things that happen.

What I said was, quite clearly, my interpretation of what you said. You said that god allows and/or creates these disasters purely so we can overcome the challenge - given the nature of the challenge "he" throws in our paths though I am at a complete loss as to how you could describe them as "caring". It (your god) is, in the way you presented it anyway, clearly a sadist.


I meant people shouldn't blame him for all the problems of the world. and before you pull a 'you can't just blame him for the good things and ignore the bad', yes, God created things on this planet that could hurt us.

Why? Why did a god that loves us make something to hurt us, things we clearly don't want. It's like if I claimed to love my kids and then chucked them, cold and confused, into a room full of sharp, pointy, tetnus-laced metal. Unlike god, however, there are child protection officers to take the kids off me.


But this is our planet now. We were given it to protect it, and take care of it.

Again, why? What's so special about us and this planet that God would put one on the other and then care so much about it? I contend that you're back to the problem of a disinterested, sadistic or impotent god. Either it's lost interest because, well, look through a fucking telescope and tell me that if you could create all that you'd give a shit about some shaved gibbons on a mediocre rock going around a boring little main sequence star. Then again it may have left us simply to see how we do, which strikes me as sadistic because this place is so full of misery, mainly thanks to things that it made. Finally it could not be interfering when disaster strikes because it can't. In the first two cases why should we worship it and in the third why should we call it a god at all.


So that means dealing with things that aren't the best. So a way, ys, I guess he is responsible for the good and the bad, but think about it. don't bad things often bring people together? I'm not saying this was his intention, but they do.

Oh this is just fucking gold. The (questionable) upside of natural disasters, by your own admission, may well be entirely unintentional on the part of god. That suggests to me that the downsides, which are the primary impact of these things, are the only thing god is interested in. You really are not advertising this entity as anything but maleficent and cruel. I also think that a perfect entity could have thought of a way to bring people together which didn't feature them dying in their thousands.


When tragedies strike, nations come together to help one another. When a common enemy (crisis in this case) rears its head, people get up and fight and help one another when they would normally not consider working together in any other event. I'm not saying this justifies the deaths of people, as I wish people wouldn't have to die for others to get along.

It's neither the only, nor the most long-lasting way of guaranteeing co-operation though is it? More people have worked together for longer in the poisonous name of nationality than they have for any disaster relief (consider the world wars where two groups of nations threw their workers into an enormous meat-grinder where they worked and died together for years.) this doesn't justify nations though.


No, it's called being an ass and insulting people. There are ways of disagreeing without insulting them.

There are ways of arguing without insulting people, I've very little interest in practising them unless I have a reason to respect the other person.


True, I jsut did it, but that's because no matter where I see you argue you demean the other person.

Be fair, I don't always demean people. I goad them, lampoon them, make rude insinuations about them, swear at them and do many other such things depending on what mood strikes me.


Debating should be about knowledge VS knowledge not taunt and criticize and mix knowledge within.

Formal debate, maybe, but not so much here. Also debate and argument must always be about criticism otherwise it would simply be two people presenting their own arguments as valid unchallenged by the other. It would be a farce.


And granted, you probably are smarter than me, I never claimed to be, but at least act it if you are going to expect it from me, too.

Being sarcastic and taking the piss out of you is not acting unintelligent, I'm terribly sorry you think so. Perhaps it is because you want for wit?


Blindly faithful. Oh yeah. because that is TOTALLY what I am when I consider all the sides of the arguement, which is what I have been doing. Please refer to my other posts. I'm nto following my god screaming ALLA AKBAHR as i blow myself to bloody smitherines, nor would I if it was said I needed to serve God by killing others.

Blind faith in God does not mean you hold to violent doctrines, don't be an idiot. I could be blindly faithful in a disinterested god, for example, which wouldn't necessitate my behaving in the ways you describe. However you did say:


I will not change how I see It[the existance of god].

which suggests blind faith. Also since you're believe in something for which their is no published and reliable evidence I suspect a certain amount of blindness in your "faith".


I know the difference between right and wrong, between somethign completely unbelievable and somethign plausible, and i base my beliefs off my veiws and adjust some of mine that aren't as good.

As someone who knows right from wrong how do you worship a character as bloodthirsty as the god of the bible?
As someone who knows the difference between plausible and implausible what causes you to believe in an omnipresent creator that cares only for (approximately) 7 billion creatures on about 150 million square miles in the vastness of a universe that is filled with many fascinating phenomena and (presumably) creatures?
It seems to me you only adjust ideas you feel comfortable adjusting, ideas you aren't emotionally attached to.

[AtteroDominatus]

ou said that god allows and/or creates these disasters purely so we can overcome the challenge - given the nature of the challenge "he" throws in our paths though I am at a complete loss as to how you could describe them as "caring". It (your god) is, in the way you presented it anyway, clearly a sadist.
Again, not everything is perfect. I understand this creates a loop where it will be asked why would he not create a perfect world. What's the point of creating something perfect? I wish I understood how God worked, but I don't, because I'm not perfect. Maybe it is this way so things will grow and advance, become the best way on their own. I don't think God delights in the struggle of humanity. I think he is merely giving us a chance to make things better ourselves. I'm not sure why, I really can't give you a reason.


Why? Why did a god that loves us make something to hurt us, things we clearly don't want.Because if there's no bad, people can't appreciate the good. this has been proven again and again. Take for example kids who are always given everything they want. They become *****y and bratty often times because they expect everything to be perfect, what they want. Now look at a person who is slightly less fortunate and is able to get better now and again, he's happy that he received something more. I've had people say this goes against communism, but if you look at it, it more supports the idea. People who are given everything aren't happy in this world. Because they just receive and get nothing back. If people are given what they need, not just what they want, they are able to better society because they're not sitting behind a desk counting their money. Back to the point, yes, innocent people also get hurt. But also, I can't explain this. People die, it's how the world works =/


Again, why? What's so special about us and this planet that God would put one on the other and then care so much about it?
Nothing, really. You ever think maybe there's other life and he cares about -all- of them?


look through a fucking telescope and tell me that if you could create all that you'd give a shit about some shaved gibbons on a mediocre rock going around a boring little main sequence star.
If i created something, I would care about all of what i created. I make many drawings and sculptures all the time, and just because one is better than the rest, it does not mean i don't value the others. There's no reason for him not to care about us, really. Just ebcause there's more doesn't mean you can't care about all of it.


Then again it may have left us simply to see how we do, which strikes me as sadistic because this place is so full of misery, mainly thanks to things that it made.But he didn't necessarily design it to be that way, did He? You seem to think that since the world is currently a bad place, that whatever exists out there is fine with it. That if there is a God, that he just sits there and lets us wallow in it. but things get better and sometimes worse. And his fault? because he made things? and, of course, humans aren't responsible AT ALL for anything that happens (granted, he made us, too, so i can see where you're going). But he gave us a choice, didn't he? Maybe it's not because he's sadistic, but because he believes he shouldn't make his creations blind followers, give them the feelings and knowledge to decide for themselves.


Finally it could not be interfering when disaster strikes because it can't.
He does, indirectly, in my opinion. I don't have to be somewhere to help someone. I can send money or do other things to help out. And in this, God could be doing likewise, inspiring people to help, without descending from god knows where in a magic cloud and poofing everything into a magical happy land of perfection.


The (questionable) upside of natural disasters, by your own admission, may well be entirely unintentional on the part of god
Yet again, this is because I'm not God. I don't know how he thinks, I only have guesses.


That suggests to me that the downsides, which are the primary impact of these things, are the only thing god is interested in. You really are not advertising this entity as anything but maleficent and cruel. I also think that a perfect entity could have thought of a way to bring people together which didn't feature them dying in their thousands.
Maybe He does, we just don't see it. Such as, idk, emotions? like empathy, sympathy, love. People just tend to ignore them nowadays.


It's neither the only, nor the most long-lasting way of guaranteeing co-operation though is it?
Never said it was. It's a step toward proving we -can- work together, though.


There are ways of arguing without insulting people, I've very little interest in practising them unless I have a reason to respect the other person
Completely typical. Let's not respect people until they give us a reason to. You sound jsut like the rest of the world. Just like the burgeoise. Let's not care/respect people until they demand to be respected or prove they can be. Let's just treat people like shit by default until they prove they're not shit. :laugh:


Being sarcastic and taking the piss out of you is not acting unintelligent, I'm terribly sorry you think so.
Ba dum tish.


Blind faith in God does not mean you hold to violent doctrines, don't be an idiot.
I was using one example. I can't list them all, jsut picking the most severe one because it would get my point across better.


Also since you're believe in something for which their is no published and reliable evidence I suspect a certain amount of blindness in your "faith".
Miracles, ghosts, spirits. Things like this have been seen, spotted. and there are reliable accounts. I don't have any of them on link, though. I'll try looking them up sometime. Also, you can call it what you will. Blind men often see more things than those with eyes.


As someone who knows right from wrong how do you worship a character as bloodthirsty as the god of the bible? Because I can? Because maybe God works in a way you don't understand, and because maybe there is an underlying sense of good beneath it all.


As someone who knows the difference between plausible and implausible what causes you to believe in an omnipresent creator that cares only for (approximately) 7 billion creatures on about 150 million square miles in the vastness of a universe that is filled with many fascinating phenomena and (presumably) creatures? I never said, nor thought that he only cares about us. I think there are more planets and life out there, and that he cares for them all.


It seems to me you only adjust ideas you feel comfortable adjusting, ideas you aren't emotionally attached to.
Not really. there have been several things I have had to accept that I was not comfortable with at first. The idea of homosexuality is one. It struck me as odd, something I did not understand. But because my beliefs tell me to respect everyone, to treat people as God's creations, I forced myself to be more open to the idea. Now, I'm not sure how I ever thought it was wrong because it's the same as if a man and a woman were in love. I've accepted many things through this, not just things i am comfortable with.

[Rangi]

God isn't real.

The Catholic church funded revolutionary nationalist forces in Spain under General Franco who went on to commit the most horrendous atrocities on men, women and children.

Little old ladies in Connecticut had bake sales co-ordinated by their local Catholic Women's Guild to buy bullets for nationalist death squads to put into small children.

I bet if Jesus was around then he would be mighty pissed off.

If the organization that connected me personally to God did such a thing then I would think about switching faiths.

[mikelepore]

What I'm about to say is only a conjecture. It's what the discipline of logic calls a "just-so story." I'm going to describe how I think something happened, even though I wasn't there to see it happen.

This is the origin of religion.

With all the people who make up stories, around the campfire, over dinner, at one time or another every possible kind of story that can be told will be told. Then there is a kind of natural selection that causes a few of these stories to be remembered and repeated, while most of them are forgotten. The stories that offer what psychologists call a "payoff" will tend to be remembered.

One paleolithic day, Ugg and Ook were sitting in their cave and telling stories. Ugg said to Ook: Imagine if your thought is something that's contained inside your body, like water in a cup. Then when you die, the mind comes out of the body and floats off to another place. Then the two of them realized what this would imply. It would mean that death isn't the end, that death is only passage through a doorway to another world, where we will live forever. We will probably be rejoined with our dead friends and family members. We can make the children stop crying by telling them this story. There could be a kind of chief who runs this spirit world. This chief can make up some rules, for example, don't kill members of the same tribe, but kill the members of the other tribe. We could even have rewards for good people who got cheated in life, and punishments for bad people who got away with the things they did. This chief can also perform magic, and help us have good luck in hunting. This magic chief could also be the one who created the world. And the spirit world must be up in the sky and also very bright, because the stars are little holes that allow the light to shine through. This story seems to allow everything to make so much sense now. This is such a useful story, I'm going to remember it, and tell it to everyone in the village, and urge everyone to tell it to their children.

I think that's the origin of religion.

[Rangi]

Work in a few chariot races and some sex and violence into that story and you have the Bible.

[Pogue]

God created us from nothing, when we were in a state of nothingness, put us on a world where we are likely to suffer and increasingly likely to choose to be an atheist due to lack of any evidence of gods existence or a member of another religion because they are so many. If we don't believe in God (Jesus) god will then send us to eternal damnation just because he wants to. He is cruel and evil and a psychopath who plays games with us and lets us suffer and risk eternal damnation when he could give us eternal bliss for no reason.

Either that or he's not real.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

God: Sadist or lie - Thank fuck he is the Latter.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Well, I've never had a near life death experience. But I've known people who did. My mother is a nurse and she's worked with quite a few patients. In Georgia (the US state not the one in Europe) she had a patient who had been clinically dead for over half an hour. The doctors had given up on trying tor revive him, but after they declared him legally dead he suddenly had a heartbeat again. He told my mom of a place he went to where there were all these beautiful flowers, and there was a sense of peace. He said he saw people there he had known but a shining light told him it was not his time, yet. He pleaded with it, but it pulled him back to heaven. Needless to say,none of the doctors believed him but agreed the fact he was alive was a miracle.

This is not scientific evidence of a god(s) existence. Personal experiences are evidence of personal experiences.

What do you call a healthy human who suddenly dies? Evidence that god(s) don't exist? Of course not.


Experiences like these are all I can really offer, though it does seem far fetched and I realy don't expect people to believe them.Because they are not scientific evidence.


another reason I believe, though, is because spirits and ghosts. Some events happen that not even science can explain, like encounters with ghosts.So if science can't explain something, we conclude that we don't know, a lack of evidence meaning that it most likely isn't true - we do not say "we can't explain, therefore it is spirits or ghosts".


Yes, many of these are made up, but there are some that seem too well witnessed to be true. I'll look for some links later to try and find some convincing ghost encounters.Do they have scientific evidence?


But for that, even if there is no heaven or hell, i believe someone can live on after their mortal body has ceased to be suitable for sustaining their existence.Why do you believe this?

[AtteroDominatus]

@HS revolution: science can't prove everything. I don't even want to start, because you're all for science. So I'll just say now that the base of religion is faith and belief, not specific evidence and science. Ofc this means many people call it fake and a thing to control people, a design to give us meaning, but I like somethign that can pull people together to work for the common good. it's just sad it's been so corrupt half the time, it has nice ideologies

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

@HS revolution: science can't prove everything.

Does that mean we don't know; or do we conclude with god(s)? Why not ghosts, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?


I don't even want to start, because you're all for science.I'll listen to your arguments for the existence of god(s) and religion without interruption, this is debate, and the idea that arguments matter rather than the amount of proponents goes for both theists and atheists. :)


So I'll just say now that the base of religion is faith and belief, not specific evidence and science.Faith is belief without evidence. We conclude if something is true by using the scientific method. If it doesn't have evidence, then it is likely that it is not true, same for ghosts, the Flying Spaghetti Monster etc.


Ofc this means many people call it fake and a thing to control people, a design to give us meaning, but I like somethign that can pull people together to work for the common good.That doesn't make it any more true, do you believe things are real because they are true or because they are good ideas?


it's just sad it's been so corrupt half the time, it has nice ideologiesAll the "good points" that moderate religion tries to champion can be had without religion.

[FuckYoCouch]

If Any of you have Ever Read the bible, you would see a very Large General Themes.

God Loves Humanity.

But why, do you ask, does he let us subject ourselves to the death and suffering that we subject ourselves to daily? Because Humanity has something called Curiosity. Curiosity killed the cat, made Adam and eve eat the fruit, and ever since, it did not matter how may times God purged the wicked from the earth to try and save everyone else, we could not and would not accept gods word and turn from the path that humanity set for its self. it is Futile. So why doesn't he just Wipe us out again? We are our own example of Why to follow gos word. Imagine if everyone followed the bible. we'd all be Living in a Socialist Utopia! Free of Murder, Stealing, Rape. and all of that other stuff that the Ten Commandments Strictly Prohibits.

[Jazzratt]

Again, not everything is perfect. I understand this creates a loop where it will be asked why would he not create a perfect world. What's the point of creating something perfect? I wish I understood how God worked, but I don't, because I'm not perfect.

That's a complete fucking cop out and if you're going to insist on retreating to lazy retorts like [to paraphrase] "god moves in mysterious ways" it's clear that you don't have the integrity to argue your point.



Maybe it is this way so things will grow and advance, become the best way on their own. I don't think God delights in the struggle of humanity. I think he is merely giving us a chance to make things better ourselves. I'm not sure why, I really can't give you a reason.

If you can't think of a reason, any reason at all, that a beneficent deity with infinite power is causing or allowing these things then why are you sure that a beneficent deity with infinite power is doing it? You've got no evidence of such an entity and no reason for it to be doing any of this so why do you believe?


Because if there's no bad, people can't appreciate the good. this has been proven again and again.

Personally I would rather be ignorant of bad, and therefore unable to fully appreciate good (whatever that means) rather than to suffer through bad things so that respite from it feels good. Similarly why would a god that loves us wish anything but "goodness" on us, why would it be so petty as to demand that we appreciate it?


Take for example kids who are always given everything they want. They become *****y and bratty often times because they expect everything to be perfect, what they want.

Yes, but this only happens because the things they want can no longer be provided for whatever reason - usually because the things the kid asks for aren't being provided by an omnipotent deity. If the child continued to receive whatever they wished and inhabited a perfect world I imagine they would be thoroughly amiable people.


Now look at a person who is slightly less fortunate and is able to get better now and again, he's happy that he received something more.

So happiness must be bought at the price of near constant misfortune? Maybe that's your bag, I don't know, but I would rather live in whatever emotionally neutral state people who do not worry for anything live in than continue desperately trying to eke happiness from the ephemeral moments when misery dissipates. To put it another way it's better to not feel many emotions at all than to fool yourself into thinking that lack of sadness is actually happiness.


I've had people say this goes against communism, but if you look at it, it more supports the idea. People who are given everything aren't happy in this world. Because they just receive and get nothing back. If people are given what they need, not just what they want, they are able to better society because they're not sitting behind a desk counting their money.

I don't think you can say that people who are given everything aren't happy because you've got no examples of people who are given everything they want. People are given a lot, a lot more than they deserve often, but no one gets their every wish by virtue of this world not being perfect. Also it should be the aim of any society to reduce the amount of work the people living in it do, it is not the interest of any kind of communist to demand people suffer for what they have. Leave that to ascetic monks.


Back to the point, yes, innocent people also get hurt. But also, I can't explain this. People die, it's how the world works =/

I'm quite aware of how the world works, thanks. I don't need a masochist that revels in it to tell me. The world works exactly as if it has no outside forces acting to help people or hinder them, suggesting an inactive or (more likely non-existent) god.


Nothing, really. You ever think maybe there's other life and he cares about -all- of them?

That's possible. If it cares for them the way it cares for us though I hope there are some that escape his notice. Though I'm still not convinced that a detail as small as what develops on the tiny rocks going around tiny stars would be of great interest to something that can create the endless galaxies of the universe.


If i created something, I would care about all of what i created. I make many drawings and sculptures all the time, and just because one is better than the rest, it does not mean i don't value the others.

When you look back at your sculptures and drawings are you going to be admiring the whole thing or do you actually go over with a magnifying glass looking at the differences in graphite distribution across one pencil line? Is every single detail, no matter how tiny, something you think about much less care about?


There's no reason for him not to care about us, really. Just ebcause there's more doesn't mean you can't care about all of it.

Maybe it doesn't care about any life because on the scale of universes we don't feature.


But he didn't necessarily design it to be that way, did He? You seem to think that since the world is currently a bad place, that whatever exists out there is fine with it.

Well either whatever exists out there is fine with it (because it doesn't care or because it actively revels in the state of affairs, as you suggest) or it is unable to change it.


That if there is a God, that he just sits there and lets us wallow in it.

I have no idea why you find the idea of god letting us get on with it or not existing so disturbing when the alternative is that god is inflicting it on us.


but things get better and sometimes worse. And his fault? because he made things?

It's god's fault things are bad if it is responsible when things are good. It is god's fault things are bad if it thinks about us, can prevent bad befalling us and chooses not to.


and, of course, humans aren't responsible AT ALL for anything that happens (granted, he made us, too, so i can see where you're going).

Don't strawman you ****. Humans are to blame for certain things but it's quite fair to say that if a god created this world it is responisble for things like earthquakes, volcanoes and plagues.


But he gave us a choice, didn't he?

Please tell me what choice it offered the people of Pompeii, to take one example.


Maybe it's not because he's sadistic, but because he believes he shouldn't make his creations blind followers, give them the feelings and knowledge to decide for themselves.

According to your mythology it slung us onto this earth and made us mortal because we ate from the tree of knowledge. Similarly part of your knowledge states that he took a disliking to one of his loyal servants because that servant (Satan'el or similar was the name, I think) wished to imbue us with knowledge at power. But even that aside and assuming a more generic loving god I'm still not entirely sure as to why a god would think of followers that are are able to decide for themselves would be blind followers if it gave them daily evidence of its existance. In fact surely in a world where god gives no indication of its presence whatsoever isn't the blind faith that of the people who believe in it?

Why would a god that did not want blindly faithful followers make a world where the only kind of followers it could get are of the blind variety?


He does, indirectly, in my opinion. I don't have to be somewhere to help someone. I can send money or do other things to help out. And in this, God could be doing likewise, inspiring people to help, without descending from god knows where in a magic cloud and poofing everything into a magical happy land of perfection.

The difference is that you can't actually go somewhere and sort a problem out. God can. You leave some evidence of your helping indirectly; in the form of money arriving at a place, letters of support written in your handwriting or whatever, god leaves none at all. Again why would a god that didn't want us to suffer not "poof everything into a magical happy land of perfection"? Why would you describe a god that did want us to continue suffering as "loving"?


Yet again, this is because I'm not God. I don't know how he thinks, I only have guesses.

Stop using that cop out.


Maybe He does, we just don't see it. Such as, idk, emotions? like empathy, sympathy, love. People just tend to ignore them nowadays.

If it made empathy, sympathy and love then it must have made anger and hate. So at two of the major obstacles to us working together, that it is killing us in our thousands (I'm not going to let you forget the whole dying in our thousands aspects of this god's love) to help us overcome, were created by the god itself. It's killing us to fix its own mistakes and that is a caring god? Fucking hell I can't wait until you tell me how you imagine a sadistic god, it must be one fucked up beast.


Never said it was. It's a step toward proving we -can- work together, though.

So. The fact we can work together is not in dispute. The caring nature of god (assuming it exists) is what is in question.


Completely typical. Let's not respect people until they give us a reason to.

Yes. That is how respect works, it is earned.


I was using one example. I can't list them all, jsut picking the most severe one because it would get my point across better.


But you still haven't proved you're anything but blindly faithful.


Miracles, ghosts, spirits.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


Things like this have been seen, spotted.

Yeah. My sister has "spotted" wildebeest herds sweeping across her ceiling by the light of her hands (which were sometimes a fire). This is because she ate a lot of mushrooms.


and there are reliable accounts.

No. There aren't. I can tell you how I know without looking that there aren't, if there were then everyone would know. It would be on the fucking news. People would be tripping over themselves to read these reports, they would be published in every scientific journal in every country. The scientific community would explode with excitment over them.

What you have read are the delusional rantings of crackpots and snake-oil salesmen. It looks like you've been had.


I don't have any of them on link, though.

Well that's handy.


I'll try looking them up sometime. Also, you can call it what you will. Blind men often see more things than those with eyes.

Please do, I trust they are in reputable publications. I am going to call them what I want because they are manifestly false, unless you can furnish me with some genuine proof (which would be a miracle of its own). Incidentally blind people don't see anything. That's what makes them blind.


Because I can? Because maybe God works in a way you don't understand, and because maybe there is an underlying sense of good beneath it all.

I could worship all kinds of things, but I choose not to because I find them fanciful, unworthy or, usually (and especially in the case of the war god Yaweh/Ihehoua), both. I can only judge your god on what your mythology says about it and that god is a distasteful little shit, no matter hwat its motives were. I found the overwhelming sense of good when your god was telling its people to dash out the brains of children, when your god was drowning the world or when your god was razing entire towns. I felt immensly glad when it came undone against the "iron chariots" of one of its many enemies. I have read stories of your god and it does little to indicate goodness and caring.


I never said, nor thought that he only cares about us. I think there are more planets and life out there, and that he cares for them all.

Does it get as involved with them as your mythology suggests it did with us and if so why did it never mention them to us or vice versa? Is there a jesus equivelent for all of them?


Not really. there have been several things I have had to accept that I was not comfortable with at first.

Then why can't you break the chains in your mind?


The idea of homosexuality is one. It struck me as odd, something I did not understand. But because my beliefs tell me to respect everyone, to treat people as God's creations, I forced myself to be more open to the idea.

Good for you. Most people I know adjusted to the idea of homosexuality because their belief system was one of not being complete dicks but if you need to believe there's a wizard in the sky in order not to be completely despicable perhaps you should carry on as you are.


Now, I'm not sure how I ever thought it was wrong because it's the same as if a man and a woman were in love. I've accepted many things through this, not just things i am comfortable with.

People always have more trouble with things that they are not comfortable with though, it's not a sign of moral weakness or anything.I imagine you feel uncomfortable in a universe with a nonexistant or uncaring god, for example.

[FuckYoCouch]

If it made empathy, sympathy and love then it must have made anger and hate. Anger and Hate And Evil Are Lack of the above mentioned. you cannot Create Anger and Hate.

[Francis]

I thought communists were atheists? Shouldn't this discussion have ended 30 posts ago?

I can understand your gripes with organized religion; completely understandable, but a belief in god isn't something that should be completely shunned and ridiculed in the leftist community.

Super pro-capitalists are the same way towards a belief in god. It's amazing how very similar capitalists and communists are in their thinking and what society ought to look like.

[FuckYoCouch]

I thought communists were atheists? Shouldn't this discussion have ended 30 posts ago?

I can understand your gripes with organized religion; completely understandable, but a belief in god isn't something that should be completely shunned and ridiculed in the leftist community.

Super pro-capitalists are the same way towards a belief in god. It's amazing how very similar capitalists and communists are in their thinking and what society ought to look like.


while it is my understanding that Marxists And Maoists Are Primarily Athiest. but there are some who arent.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

I wish I understood how God worked, but I don't, because I'm not perfect. They become *****y and bratty often times because they expect everything to be perfect, what they want.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster works in mysterious ways! The suffering in this world goes against a good Flying Spaghetti Monster, but who needs science when we can just say that it is the mysterious ways of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? :rolleyes:

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

If Any of you have Ever Read the bible, you would see a very Large General Themes.

God Loves Humanity.

But why, do you ask, does he let us subject ourselves to the death and suffering that we subject ourselves to daily? Because Humanity has something called Curiosity. Curiosity killed the cat, made Adam and eve eat the fruit, and ever since, it did not matter how may times God purged the wicked from the earth to try and save everyone else, we could not and would not accept gods word and turn from the path that humanity set for its self. it is Futile. So why doesn't he just Wipe us out again? We are our own example of Why to follow gos word. Imagine if everyone followed the bible. we'd all be Living in a Socialist Utopia! Free of Murder, Stealing, Rape. and all of that other stuff that the Ten Commandments Strictly Prohibits.

So an omniscient being made curiosity, which he knew would lead to suffering, which he knew was going to happen, which he knew people would be punished for?:confused:

God loves humanity?... :laugh:


It's amazing how very similar capitalists and communists are in their thinking and what society ought to look like.

What? :huh:

[FuckYoCouch]

.... God Knew. And Stupid Humanity, Being the Typical Preachers Children (xD) Dont listen. much like The CHildren that know it all at age 5. Humanity is Paying the Price for its own Stupidity.

[FuckYoCouch]

So an omniscient being made curiosity, which he knew would lead to suffering, which he knew was going to happen, which he knew people would be punished for?:confused:

God loves humanity?... :laugh:



What? :huh:
Hes Calling you an Authoritarian xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

[Jazzratt]

Anger and Hate And Evil Are Lack of the above mentioned. you cannot Create Anger and Hate.

No, they aren't. I can be empathetic and angry, I can symapthise with people and still hate them. The only way you could possibly argue anger, hate and "evil" (whatever the fuck that is) are a lack of empathy, sympathy and love is if every human's default state was one of being angry, hateful and "evil". Given that most people tend to just be kind of apathetic unless emotionally stirred one way or the other I don't see this is the case. If god created emotions it created "negative" ones too.

Also anger and hatred aren't immediatly evil. Oppression makes me angry and I hate the bourgeois, these are positive things.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

.... God Knew. And Stupid Humanity, Being the Typical Preachers Children (xD) Dont listen. much like The CHildren that know it all at age 5. Humanity is Paying the Price for its own Stupidity.

If this God existed...

The omniscient being knew that the stupidity (murder, war etc.) was going to exist, yet God allowed it to happen. So now we are paying the price for a stupidity that God could have put an end to. What's even worse is that he created things that he knew would go through this stupidity, and get punished for eternity. So we're the guinea pigs for a test that was already known long before our creation?

Does anybody else notice something wrong here?

[FuckYoCouch]

If this God existed...

The omniscient being knew that the stupidity (murder, war etc.) was going to exist, yet God allowed it to happen. So now we are paying the price for a stupidity that God could have put an end to. What's even worse is that he created things that he knew would go through this stupidity, and get punished for eternity. So we're the guinea pigs for a test that was already known long before our creation?

Does anybody else notice something wrong here?


the only way to end "his" "errors" was to end humanity alltogether

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

the only way to end "his" "errors" was to end humanity alltogether

If this God is supposed to be benevolent and omniscient, then he knew that there were errors and that they were going to exist in the future.

The benevolent thing to do would be to prevent the future event from happening. This god is supposed to be omnipotent, he could have done that, but he didn't...

Not very benevolent of him. This God like all omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent gods contradict themselves.

[casper]

Not very benevolent of him. This God like all omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent gods contradict themselves. thats why i'm not a Christan

[FuckYoCouch]

If this God is supposed to be benevolent and omniscient, then he knew that there were errors and that they were going to exist in the future.

The benevolent thing to do would be to prevent the future event from happening. This god is supposed to be omnipotent, he could have done that, but he didn't...

Not very benevolent of him. This God like all omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent gods contradict themselves.

its funny how Marxists Talk about everything being well reasoned, but the one force that does not adhere to any logic or reasoning, is LOVE. God Has the Ability To LOVE. That is the sole reason god did not destroy earth every couple of years because there was Too much Not following the Word. LOVE. Which being a Central theme to the bible, seems to Elude even the most skeptical Marxist.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

its funny how Marxists Talk about everything being well reasoned, but the one force that does not adhere to any logic or reasoning, is LOVE.

Oh really? http://anonym.to/?http://people.howstuffworks.com/love.htm


God Has the Ability To LOVE. That is the sole reason god did not destroy earth every couple of years because there was Too much Not following the Word.
Didn't stop him from destroying the world that time did it? What happened to his ability to love then? He's omniscient, he wouldn't have forgotten about love would he? He even knows about his love in the future, right?

So are we going to answer the point in my previous post?


LOVE. Which being a Central theme to the bible, seems to Elude even the most skeptical Marxist.Well the Bible hasn't seemed to have stopped the use of Google for research...

[FuckYoCouch]

Oh really?

Didn't stop him from destroying the world that time did it? What happened to his ability to love then? He's omniscient, he wouldn't have forgotten about love would he? He even knows about his love in the future, right?

So are we going to answer the point in my previous post?
Well the Bible hasn't seemed to have stopped the use of Google for research...


the fact that you pointed to some Scientific Article about the Chemical Analysis of Love Is completely irrelevant to Love Channeled through Humanity towards each other.

God, Destroyed the earth, save a few, to show man what following his word did, and also the lack of his word did. it was a lesson learned, for the benefit of Humanity.

and i did answer Your Question. ill say it again if you didnt understand. i know i have to dumb shit down for some people to understand, but thats ridiculous. LOVE >:wub:<

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

the fact that you pointed to some Scientific Article about the Chemical Analysis of Love Is completely irrelevant to Love Channeled through Humanity towards each other.
Oh but it's completely relevant, you said that there was no logic and reason behind it, and yet there it is. That is what love is in reality anyway.

Or did you mean supernatural love - the kind that you believe God sends or created, or mentioned in the Bible? How is it different from real love? In any case, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of this supernatural love.


God, Destroyed the earth, save a few, to show man what following his word did, and also the lack of his word did.Right... besides the fact that there is no evidence for this whatsoever, so this god killed people to teach future people a lesson in the Bible? He is omniscient, he did know that he was going to kill people in the future, but he couldn't have used his omnipotence to come up with a more humane solution? Of course he could of...

Not really seeing where love comes into it...


it was a lesson learned, for the benefit of Humanity.
...oh I see. So this god is basically saying:

"I knew that you weren't going to follow my word, and I could have stopped it and saved many lives, but now that the destruction is over, you have to follow my word - though it won't make any difference because I have always known if you are going to follow it or not. You have been warned."

...still not seeing this "love".



and i did answer Your Question. ill say it again if you didnt understand. i know i have to dumb shit down for some people to understand, but thats ridiculous. LOVE >:wub:<You had to say it didn't you? I see that you like debate, I could tell from your last few posts. Please keep the responses reasonable, can you point to a single response of mine where I haven't?

[FuckYoCouch]

Oh but it's completely relevant, you said that there was no logic and reason behind it, and yet there it is. That is what love is in reality anyway.

Or did you mean supernatural love - the kind that you believe God sends or created, or mentioned in the Bible? How is it different from real love? In any case, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of this supernatural love.
Right... besides the fact that there is no evidence for this whatsoever, so this god killed people to teach future people a lesson in the Bible? He is omniscient, he did know that he was going to kill people in the future, but he couldn't have used his omnipotence to come up with a more humane solution? Of course he could of...

Not really seeing where love comes into it...

...oh I see. So this god is basically saying:

"I knew that you weren't going to follow my word, and I could have stopped it and saved many lives, but now that the destruction is over, you have to follow my word - though it won't make any difference because I have always known if you are going to follow it or not. You have been warned."

...still not seeing this "love".

You had to say it didn't you? I see that you like debate, I could tell from your last few posts. Please keep the responses reasonable, can you point to a single response of mine where I haven't?

If you have never even read the bible, you shouldn't be arguing with me anyway, if you want to be reasonable. as far as you not seeing the love, im sure its because you are either 1. a teenager, or someone who simply doesn't understand the love one can have over a creation, or love at all for that matter.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you have never even read the bible, you shouldn't be arguing with me anyway, if you want to be reasonable. as far as you not seeing the love, im sure its because you are either 1. a teenager, or someone who simply doesn't understand the love one can have over a creation, or love at all for that matter.

What the fuck kind of loving god would create a world in which bone cancer occurs, perhaps the most painful natural death in existance?

If that's what "God" thinks of as love, I want no part of it.

[FuckYoCouch]

What the fuck kind of loving god would create a world in which bone cancer occurs, perhaps the most painful natural death in existance?

If that's what "God" thinks of as love, I want no part of it.
Maybe you should read the bible and figure out why it does occur

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

If you have never even read the bible, you shouldn't be arguing with me anyway, if you want to be reasonable.

Have you read the Qur'an? If not, then how can you say you are a Christian?
Have you read the Rasa'il al-hikmah? If not, then how can you say you are a Christian?
Have you read the Bon Kangyur? If not, then how can you say you are a Christian?

In fact, read all of these: http://anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripture, because according to you, that's being "reasonable". :rolleyes:

In fact, as long as you remain "unreasonable" (according to you), do not ever debate again.

...or...

You can just except the fact that scientists do not have to waste their time on claims that have no evidence, and you can continue debating once you have realised that fact.


as far as you not seeing the love, im sure its because you are either 1. a teenager, or someone who simply doesn't understand the love one can have over a creation, or love at all for that matter.Love isn't limited to a centuries old book. That's because love exists in reality and it has evidence, of course I understand it, because I have read about it.

However this love does not exist with this god. I have already explained how it cannot be and yet you bring up the destruction of humanity as a "lesson", and then I explained that an omniscient god cannot do that and be a caring god. Since then you havedone nothing but criticise me and NoXion of not reading your book when you seem to have no problem following a centuries old religion, claiming that the rest are incorrect and still have not read the other books

[FuckYoCouch]

Have you read the Qur'an? If not, then how can you say you are a Christian?
Have you read the Rasa'il al-hikmah? If not, then how can you say you are a Christian?
Have you read the Bon Kangyur? If not, then how can you say you are a Christian?

In fact, read all of these: http://anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripture, because according to you, that's being "reasonable". :rolleyes:

In fact, as long as you remain "unreasonable" (according to you), do not ever debate again.

...or...

You can just except the fact that scientists do not have to waste their time on claims that have no evidence, and you can continue debating once you have realised that fact.

Love isn't limited to a centuries old book. That's because love exists in reality and it has evidence, of course I understand it, because I have read about it.

However this love does not exist with this god. I have already explained how it cannot be and yet you bring up the destruction of humanity as a "lesson", and then I explained that an omniscient god cannot do that and be a caring god. Since then you have done nothing but criticise me and NoXion of not reading your book when you seem to have no problem following a centuries old religion, claiming that the rest are incorrect and still have not read the other books

i said nothing about love being limited to the bible. when i said Loving a creation , i was meaning "love of something you have created" Art, music, communist philosophy, whatever



Love isn't limited to a centuries old book. That's because love exists in reality and it has evidence, of course I understand it, because I have read about it.
of course it inst limited to The bible, and the manifestation of love, comes from Mankind. as far as understanding something because you have read about it, is like saying you understand what it is like to be in Armed combat, because you have read about it. it just doesn't work like that. there are some things you have to experience first hand to start to understand.

You criticize me of Criticizing you for sating my beliefs in a forum of the topic of my beliefs and you are being hostile to me? o.o :laugh:

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Reading about another religion Has nothing to with my religion. as i have never said any other religion is incorrect, as like communists, most religions are based around to distinct Themes. Love of God, and Love of Fellow Man. to your "god cannot" argument, Tough love.
Wait, so are you a Christian or just a theist?

Christianity talks of a trinity, Islam denies that trinity, so which one is it?

I think you misunderstood. You say that we haven't read the Bible, so we probably won't understand this "love". Yet you accept Christianity without reading other books - so you say that "love" is outside logic and science, but you haven't read or looked at all the evidence on science.

But I am not going to say "well don't try and debate me when you haven't read all the books on science"... because that doesn't work, we both haven't read all the holy books in the world but we both deny most religions as fully correct, right?. I'm trying to show you (a Christian) why your "reading the Bible" comment just doesn't work.

You still haven't answered my question, the idea of a caring god just doesn't work if god had the omniscience to know that through his creation and guidance the stupidity was going to happen. This isn't "why doesn't god help people" but more "why doesn't god help people if he knew that the stupidity was going to happen and had the omnipotence to end it before it happened? Doesn't that remove the benevolence?"

Please, no more avoiding the question with the "you haven't read the bible" non-argument, just an answer.


of course it inst limited to The bible,Right.

and the manifestation of love, comes from Mankind.
From biology, as humans are animals.

as far as understanding something because you have read about it, is like saying you understand what it is like to be in Armed combat, because you have read about it. it just doesn't work like that. there are some things you have to experience first hand to start to understand.
Armed combat has evidence, it is real. Love has evidence, so I understand that it exists in reality. Armed combat has evidence, so I understand that it exists in reality. God does not have any evidence, therefore it is about as likely as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You criticize me of Criticizing you for sating my beliefs in a forum of the topic of my beliefs and you are being hostile to me? o.o :laugh:Stop exaggerating, I'm not being hostile. I'm criticising you for avoiding the question.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

i said nothing about love being limited to the bible. when i said Loving a creation , i was meaning "love of something you have created" Art, music, communist philosophy, whatever

Art, music, communist philosophy has evidence for its existence. We have evidence that people have love for these things. God doesn't have evidence for his existence.

[FuckYoCouch]

Art, music, communist philosophy has evidence. God doesn't.


... i was referring to the love you can have of your creation of one of the for mentioned

Even the love of an abstract idea.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

... i was referring to the love you can have of your creation of one of the for mentioned

Even the love of an abstract idea.

Art for example then. It is too easy too say "love for art" is one thing - "love for art" is a human reaction based on your emotions - this is where the science comes in. Take a look at this: http://anonym.to/?http://www.sublimephotography.co.uk/eastendphotos/limehouse/photos/big/cable.jpg

Communists will have a "love of art" for this painting, because it is Cable Street, and look at the left, there is a hammer and sickle. One example of a human reaction is that it brings up the altruism that makes us communists, remember that video I was mentioning in the other thread?

That's just one example - however even if I couldn't give a scientific explanation, the default is "I don't know", not "well then I want to believe that Christianity is right". That's how science works.

Can I also please get an answer to my question in the earlier post?

[FuckYoCouch]

Art for example then. It is too easy too say "love for art" is one thing - "love for art" is a human reaction based on your emotions - this is where the science comes in. Take a look at this: http://anonym.to/?http://www.sublimephotography.co.uk/eastendphotos/limehouse/photos/big/cable.jpg

Communists will have a "love of art" for this painting, because it is Cable Street, and look at the left, there is a hammer and sickle. One example of a human reaction is that it brings up the altruism that makes us communists, remember that video I was mentioning in the other thread?

That's just one example - however even if I couldn't give a scientific explanation, the default is "I don't know", not "well then I want to believe that Christianity is right". That's how science works.

Can I also please get an answer to my question in the earlier post?


Love is Not an Emotion, but a Range of Emotions that have a common Trait. Affection. humans channel this emotion in many different ways.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Love is Not an Emotion, but a Range of Emotions that have a common Trait. Affection. humans channel this emotion in many different ways.

I think you have repeated what I said, without knowing it, as well as adding religion to it.

In my example, "love", (I'm referring to the love you described, as in "love of art") is a human reaction. But it is too vague to say that "love of art is one thing". You are correct in saying that a range of emotions is involved, yet from there on I'm seeing Christianity being introduced, so let us continue from there:

This "affection" in the example is directed at "art", not the same type of affection that one has towards people, but affection nevertheless.

Now we have two methods to explain what this affection is: science, or religion.

Science says: "Let's use the scientific method to find evidence and understand why this affection exists. And if we can't find anything, we will say I don't know until we do know."

Religion says: "Let us say anything (Christianity) and see if we can find anything to support it, but even if we don't we'll just say religion (Christianity) did it."

You might want to see this: http://anonym.to/?http://proch.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/science_vs_creationism.png

If we follow the religion method, we can say god(s), Flying Spaghetti Monster etc., but with the science method we understand what is happening and then we have a good reason to believe in it.

And then, we get the scientific explanation that I posted in the last post. That is why science is more powerful than religion, because if religion was true, the scientific method would show this, but religion doesn't do the same - it thinks it knows the answers when it doesn't.

Can I please have an answer to my question on God's benevolence?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

He did however, allegedly create a universe in which such disasters happen. In fact, the universe is manifestly indifferent to the fate of the human species and the individuals within it.



Why would an allegedly "perfect" being create an "imperfect" world? There are only four possibilities I can think of:

The Godless Universe - The being in question doesn't exist, therefore there's no point in worshipping it or otherwise acknowledging the concept except to criticise it.

The Ignorant God - God exists, but isn't aware of human existance, therefore worshipping it is an exercise in futility.

The Neglectful God - It exists and is aware of our existance, but for whatever reason doesn't care about us. Therefore there's no point worshipping it.

The Evil God - It exists and is aware of our existance, and deliberately created a world in which sapient beings can suffer undeservedly, making it actively malicious and thus unworthy of respect, let alone worship.
No offense AtteroDominatus, but I don't think you should defend Christianity. You don't have the knowledge of the problems and answers of theology to mount a credible defense to believers, let alone unbelievers. You let this pass without offering the most important counterargument to this list.

The Suffering God - God exists, is aware of our existence, created a suffering world, and is not actively malicious. In this case, God would suffer along with humanity in solidarity for our endless suffering. In which case, the defense of God is the defense of communism. "Why doesn't god/communism save us?" The answer is simple, "He/it is trying." In fact, it leads to important theological consequences. Why should we believe God died for our sins? He made us imperfectly. His suffering and death is his atonement for making us so poorly. There's a great deal more to be said about this, but I highly recommend you read this article.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1033

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

No offense AtteroDominatus, but I don't think you should defend Christianity. You don't have the knowledge of the problems and answers of theology to mount a credible defense to believers, let alone unbelievers. You let this pass without offering the most important counterargument to this list.

The Suffering God - God exists, is aware of our existence, created a suffering world, and is not actively malicious. In this case, God would suffer along with humanity in solidarity for our endless suffering. In which case, the defense of God is the defense of communism. "Why doesn't god/communism save us?" The answer is simple, "He/it is trying." In fact, it leads to important theological consequences. Why should we believe God died for our sins? He made us imperfectly. His suffering and death is his atonement for making us so poorly. There's a great deal more to be said about this, but I highly recommend you read this article.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1033

The article incorrectly claims that evolution is survival of the fittest, so I am not sure if it is accurate elsewhere. It also says that Darwin was leaning towards atheism, Darwin was an agnostic atheist.

This seems to be an addition to the "god is love" argument. So here's my response:

A God who will create suffering world, that has the omniscience to know of the creation of that world and the future suffering while having the omnipotence to stop it, is malicious. So what this god is going to do is put itself in a state of suffering, as solidarity, like an apology. Yet it has the omnipotence to end its own suffering and continue as the malicious god, therefore it is still malicious even in the state of suffering. Not only that, but it had the omniscience to know of its own future state of suffering, leaving the apology, the solidarity, meaningless - as it still could have used its omnipotence.

[Jazzratt]

The Suffering God - God exists, is aware of our existence, created a suffering world, and is not actively malicious. In this case, God would suffer along with humanity in solidarity for our endless suffering.

Sounds like the impotent god to me. God cannot rectify his mistakes, is therefore not all powerful and is therefore unworthy of the title "God".

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Sounds like the impotent god to me. God cannot rectify his mistakes, is therefore not all powerful and is therefore unworthy of the title "God".
What is meant by "all powerful?" Does that mean God should be able to create squared circles? Or does "all powerful" just mean the power which is more powerful than all other powers and created existence/universe? Is it also impotent if God can take actions? Also, is it impotent if God once existed and is now dead? I would ask you what, specifically did you think of the article?

The tact you're taking makes me think you're not actually thinking about this problem, but simply reacting in the form of knee-jerk atheism. Atheist can also engage in philosophy of religion, and in fact it is valuable that they do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Nielsen

However, that entails critical engagement.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Are you going to reply to my earlier post? Your comment was for Jazzratt, but I'll also reply...


What is meant by "all powerful?" Does that mean God should be able to create squared circles?
Takes away the omnipotence, but even if we didn't include this, we'd still have suffering, and God not solving it.

Or does "all powerful" just mean the power which is more powerful than all other powers and created existence/universe?That would be unlimited power, brings us back to the squared circle comment.

Is it also impotent if God can take actions?Possibly, just because he can take actions doesn't make it an omnipotent god.

Also, is it impotent if God once existed and is now dead?Depends, does it have the omnipotence to come back to life? Can it use its omnipotence if its dead?

I would ask you what, specifically did you think of the article?Inaccurate on evolution, and my response needs an answer.

The tact you're taking makes me think you're not actually thinking about this problem, but simply reacting in the form of knee-jerk atheism. Atheist can also engage in philosophy of religion, and in fact it is valuable that they do so.Well my response wasn't "knee-jerk" atheism, can I have a reply? My question is, do you have any evidence that god(s) exists?


However, that entails critical engagement.Yes it does, can I have my reply?

Also before we discuss philosophy on religion can I have scientific evidence that god(s) or any supernatural claims of any religion exists?

[Francis]

Atheists are less desirable sexual partners. I observed this once when I was living in Washington, DC, and I wandered by an atheist convention happening on the mall. The atheist were predominately male, and significantly uglier than average.

This is because ugly people become social outcasts, and social outcasts are more likely to be attracted to outcast movements like atheism, libertarianism, communism, etc.

[Robert]

Well, Francis, ugliness takes many forms, doesn't it?

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Atheists are less desirable sexual partners. I observed this once when I was living in Washington, DC, and I wandered by an atheist convention happening on the mall. The atheist were predominately male, and significantly uglier than average.

This is because ugly people become social outcasts, and social outcasts are more likely to be attracted to outcast movements like atheism, libertarianism, communism, etc.

Post reported.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

The article incorrectly claims that evolution is survival of the fittest, so I am not sure if it is accurate elsewhere. It also says that Darwin was leaning towards atheism, Darwin was an agnostic atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Fitness

It seems that you're being over pedantic about a mostly irrelevant point. Perhaps, he used the wrong phrase, but his over all point is that evolution is correct. Are you disagreeing with him that evolution is not correct?


This seems to be an addition to the "god is love" argument. So here's my response:

A God who will create suffering world, that has the omniscience to know of the creation of that world and the future suffering while having the omnipotence to stop it, is malicious. So what this god is going to do is put itself in a state of suffering, as solidarity, like an apology. Yet it has the omnipotence to end its own suffering and continue as the malicious god, therefore it is still malicious even in the state of suffering. Not only that, but it had the omniscience to know of its own future state of suffering, leaving the apology, the solidarity, meaningless - as it still could have used its omnipotence.
You need to reread the article more closely. Part of the possible argument includes that existence entails suffering. If that's the case than any creation by God (or anyone for that matter) shall entail suffering. Now then the question becomes not "will there or will there not be suffering", but "is existence better than non-existence?" In this case, it seems that God would answer in the affirmative. I would also agree.

Also, the demand for scientific proof of God is misplace. Stupid and unreflective Christians hold that God is an entity in the world like the sun or energy. They are wrong. God is an entity like morality. It doesn't necessarily have proof or evidence, it has demands. If God created the world because existence is preferable to nonexistence and if the highest being of existence suffered to save lower beings from as much suffering as possible, then it seems to demand that we should suffer to save all those who suffer. Shitty metaphysical Christianity looks like the Christianity we've all grown to know and hate. Christianity that recognizes the theological demands of an honest analysis of religion looks like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Fitness

It seems that you're being over pedantic about a mostly irrelevant point. Perhaps, he used the wrong phrase, but his over all point is that evolution is correct. Are you disagreeing with him that evolution is not correct?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

It is important because if the author is going to make such a mistake through a misunderstanding of the scientific method, which includes establishing the existence of things, then the credibility of this analysis of the existence of god is damaged.

However that does not refute his arguments, so I'll respond, I was answering your question on what I thought of the article.


Also, the demand for scientific proof of God is misplace. Stupid and unreflective Christians hold that God is an entity in the world like the sun or energy. They are wrong. God is an entity like morality.
No.

Morality is not in the supernatural, it can be explained by biology (see the thread "are humans evil?"), and even if we couldn't find evidence, then we say we don't know. Same for god, we can't find evidence, so we do not know. Before we even think of theology, we have to establish the existence of this being, otherwise theology will be as useful as Flying Spaghetti Monster-ology.


It doesn't necessarily have proof or evidence, it has demands.You are making many claims without evidence, therefore the idea the "stupid and unreflective" Christians have is about as stupid as the one your suggesting, in fact, it's better because at least they take the time to say something that resembles a definition of what they claim to exist.



You need to reread the article more closely. Part of the possible argument includes that existence entails suffering. If that's the case than any creation by God (or anyone for that matter) shall entail suffering. Now then the question becomes not "will there or will there not be suffering", but "is existence better than non-existence?" In this case, it seems that God would answer in the affirmative. I would also agree.

If God created the world because existence is preferable to nonexistence and if the highest being of existence suffered to save lower beings from as much suffering as possible, then it seems to demand that we should suffer to save all those who suffer. Shitty metaphysical Christianity looks like the Christianity we've all grown to know and hate. Christianity that recognizes the theological demands of an honest analysis of religion looks like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theologySo you are saying that in this case:

Existence = state of suffering, and there is non-existence. It seems that god has answered in the affirmative, but does that make him benevolent? The same question for you if you agree with him...

I'm not seeing how God suffering is helping his creation, could you please explain?

Theology is the theist's backdoor to the scientific method, the "study" of something from a religious perspective, a perspective which accepts the equivalent of a centuries old text (or a centuries old text in the case of Christianity) over the scientific method.

One big way of avoiding the question.

[FuckYoCouch]

Are you going to reply to my earlier post? Your comment was for Jazzratt, but I'll also reply...


Takes away the omnipotence, but even if we didn't include this, we'd still have suffering, and God not solving it.
That would be unlimited power, brings us back to the squared circle comment.
Possibly, just because he can take actions doesn't make it an omnipotent god.
Depends, does it have the omnipotence to come back to life? Can it use its omnipotence if its dead?
Inaccurate on evolution, and my response needs an answer.
Well my response wasn't "knee-jerk" atheism, can I have a reply? My question is, do you have any evidence that god(s) exists?

Yes it does, can I have my reply?

Also before we discuss philosophy on religion can I have scientific evidence that god(s) or any supernatural claims of any religion exists?



No offense AtteroDominatus, but I don't think you should defend Christianity. You don't have the knowledge of the problems and answers of theology to mount a credible defense to believers, let alone unbelievers. You let this pass without offering the most important counterargument to this list.

The Suffering God - God exists, is aware of our existence, created a suffering world, and is not actively malicious. In this case, God would suffer along with humanity in solidarity for our endless suffering. In which case, the defense of God is the defense of communism. "Why doesn't god/communism save us?" The answer is simple, "He/it is trying." In fact, it leads to important theological consequences. Why should we believe God died for our sins? He made us imperfectly. His suffering and death is his atonement for making us so poorly. There's a great deal more to be said about this, but I highly recommend you read this article.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1033

Hammer, if you do not believe that (a)god exists, thats on you. but to try and defend your athiesm by saying "prove there is a god" is like saying "prove there isnt one" while both arguments being backed up by the most ignorant person ever. some people arent meant to argue in the defence of god. Mainly Baptists, Catholics and Jehovas Witnesses >.< xD but reclaimed ,
Dude, Pleased stop talking. you are Really embarrassing me. God Did Not Create a Suffering World. The Lack of following his word created it.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Dude, Pleased stop talking. you are Really embarrassing me. God Did Not Create a Suffering World. The Lack of following his word created it.
Evidence that religious people cherry-pick "holy texts".

also hammer, if you do not believe that (a)god exists, thats on you. but to try and defend your athiesm by saying "prove there is a god" is like saying "prove there isnt one" while both arguments being backed up by the most ignorant person ever.
No, that is not how the scientific method works. Watch this to see why:

http://anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07JvzfO0vOk

Prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.


some people arent meant to argue in the defence of god. Mainly Baptists, Catholics and Jehovas Witnesses >.< xD
And yet they would say the same about you.

Religious people cherry-pick "holy texts".

[FuckYoCouch]

Evidence that religious people cherry-pick "holy texts".

No, that is not how the scientific method works. Watch this to see why:

http://anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07JvzfO0vOk

Prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.


And yet they would say the same about you.

Religious people cherry-pick "holy texts".

Examples of cherry picking?

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Examples of cherry picking?

If god did not create a suffering world, then the Book of Numbers must be wrong...

Numbers 15:32 - 15:38:



15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
15:33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 15:34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. 15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.


Do you think this was right of God? Do you think this is benevolent?

God is omniscient, he knew that the man was going to do this, so why didn't he use his omnipotence to stop this event from happening?

If you think this is a metaphor (I hope you do) or you are ignoring it, then you are cherry picking the Bible so that it agrees with you, so that you can say that you are a Christian without having to agree to this inhumane punishment. What's the point in being religious if reality to you is turning a centuries old book so that it agrees with you whenever you want it to?

Please, can you prove to me that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[FuckYoCouch]

If god did not create a suffering world, then the Book of Numbers must be wrong...

Numbers 15:32 - 15:38:
Do you think this was right of God? Do you think this is benevolent?

God is omniscient, he knew that the man was going to do this, so why didn't he use his omnipotence to stop this event from happening?

If you think this is a metaphor (I hope you do) or you are ignoring it, then you are cherry picking the Bible so that it agrees with you, so that you can say that you are a Christian without having to agree to this inhumane punishment. What's the point in being religious if reality to you is turning a centuries old book so that it agrees with you whenever you want it to?

Please, can you prove to me that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster?

okay, lets put it like this. My brother turned 16 in 2004, got his license and all that good stuff. "don't drink and drive, you'll get into an accident" dad laid down law. did he listen? Nope. luckily nobody got hurt. but he learned his lesson. dad recently told forrest he knew he drank, and told him what to do, but he respected my brother enough to let hi learn his lesson. Luckily, i dont have to defend what god did there and say that there is this group of books called the new Testament, in it, Jesus Died to give humanity the ability to put love and forgiveness (and the ability to repent) ahead of following by gods example in exchange for everlasting love to humanity and god.

and do, i cannot prove the existence of a flying spaghetti monster.

not Cherry picking. ;)

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

okay, lets put it like this. My brother turned 16 in 2004, got his license and all that good stuff. "don't drink and drive, you'll get into an accident" dad laid down law. did he listen? Nope. luckily nobody got hurt. but he learned his lesson. dad recently told forrest he knew he drank, and told him what to do, but he respected my brother enough to let hi learn his lesson. Luckily, i dont have to defend what god did there and say that there is this group of books called the new Testament, in it, Jesus Died to give humanity the ability to put love and forgiveness (and the ability to repent) ahead of following by gods example in exchange for everlasting love to humanity and god.

and do, i cannot prove the existence of a flying spaghetti monster.

not Cherry picking. ;)


The Old Testament is still there, and the New Testament thinks so too:



"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Mathew 5:17-20
Let me put this in stages:

1. God creates the earth because he is omnipotent. He is also omniscient, so he knows every event that will take place. Christians claim that he is benevolent.
[PROBLEM 1] - No scientific evidence for the existence of god.
[PROBLEM 2] - Claims of omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence are also not supported by scientific evidence.
2. A man works on the Sabbath and is stoned to death. Christians claimed that this is a "lesson".
[PROBLEM 1] - God is omniscient, he knew that this was going to happen.
[PROBLEM 2] - He is also omnipotent, but didn't stop this from happening. He is then not benevolent.
3. Christians claim that this doesn't matter, because they have the New Testament.
[PROBLEM 1] - The Book of Matthew doesn't agree with the Christians.
[PROBLEM 2] - But even if it did, God knew from stage 1 that the New Testament would happen, so why did stage 2 happen? The New Testament can't be used as an excuse, and there's the cherry picking.

You can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and you can't prove that it doesn't - do you think that it might exist? What would most people say?

[FuckYoCouch]

The Old Testament is still there, and the New Testament thinks so too:

Let me put this in stages:

1. God creates the earth because he is omnipotent. He is also omniscient, so he knows every event that will take place. Christians claim that he is benevolent.
[PROBLEM 1] - No scientific evidence for the existence of god.
[PROBLEM 2] - Claims of omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence are also not supported by scientific evidence.
2. A man works on the Sabbath and is stoned to death. Christians claimed that this is a "lesson".
[PROBLEM 1] - God is omniscient, he knew that this was going to happen.
[PROBLEM 2] - He is also omnipotent, but didn't stop this from happening. He is then not benevolent.
3. Christians claim that this doesn't matter, because they have the New Testament.
[PROBLEM 1] - The Book of Matthew doesn't agree with the Christians.
[PROBLEM 2] - But even if it did, God knew from stage 1 that the New Testament would happen, so why did stage 2 happen? The New Testament can't be used as an excuse, and there's the cherry picking.

You can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and you can't prove that it doesn't - do you think that it might exist? What would most people say?

Because Mankind is Inevitable. and mankind learned. it is not or gods benefit that he let these things happen. It is for ours, so we may learn of our mistakes

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Because Mankind is Inevitable. and mankind learned. it is not or gods benefit that he let these things happen. It is for ours, so we may learn of our mistakes

So you think that the man being stoned to death, which this god knew would happen, he knew this before this man was born and could have stopped it, you think the stoning to death was a lesson? Why not a more humane solution?

[FuckYoCouch]

So you think that the man being stoned to death, which this god knew would happen, he knew this before this man was born and could have stopped it, you think the stoning to death was a lesson? Why not a more humane solution?

Pain is the Sole Origin of Consciousness My friend

[casper]

no, no its not.

[FuckYoCouch]

no, no its not.

i doubted you understood what it meant, so ill break it down in one simple, and easy to understand story. WHen you stick a fork in the toaster trying to get a peice of toast out while it is still plugged in, you experience pain. and you probably wont do it again. unless you are emo or some batshit crazy mofo.
http://24.11.124.175:8081/

[casper]

its still not the only way. also, pain isn't necessarily a deterrent for some people, like people who do extreme sports and get back on the board after they have broken their arm or another 3 times. those people are cool and inspiring, they refuse to give up. i wouldn't call those people emo or people who enjoy pain. pain is not the only way we learn and become aware of things. pain has its uses, but its not the only way to teach.

[FuckYoCouch]

its still not the only way. also, pain isn't necessarily a deterrent for some people, like people who do extreme sports and get back on the board after they have broken their arm or another 3 times. those people are cool and inspiring, they refuse to give up. i wouldn't call those people emo or people who enjoy pain. pain is not the only way we learn and become aware of things. pain has its uses, but its not the only way to teach.

find me a better teacher than pain.

[Jazzratt]

find me a better teacher than pain.

I learned a lot more about chemistry from this bloke called Len than I did by hurting myself. Pain teaches you, at most, that a course of action is painful. I learned not to stick forks in toasters because my parents told me that the electrical current going through me and grounding at my feet is potentially deadly. Pain is a crap teacher, and certainly not a teaching method employed by loving teachers (this is part of the reason we no longer see canes in schools).

As for it being a source of consciousness, not so much. The chemical reactions and electrical pulses in the brains we evolved over millions of years are the sole source of consciousness.

[Octobox]

How can there be a Catholic Communist -- Pope John Paul II wrote extensively about "free-markets" (though he said "free-enterprise") and railed against both communism and socialism -- even the current Pope is against communism and socialism.

I guess you are not a Lord Acton type of Catholic?

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

find me a better teacher than pain.

An omniscient teacher, that is omnipotent, and can therefore see when suffering happen and stop it before it happens.

Oh wait, that's your god!

But he let that man get stoned to death...

Why do you follow a god that thinks that stoning to death is an acceptable lesson, even though he knew that his followers were making mistakes, and new about those mistakes before they happened, and could have stopped those mistakes from happening so that there didn't have to be an inhumane punishment?

That is not a benevolent god, that is not a good teacher. Why do you follow him?

[AtteroDominatus]

No offense AtteroDominatus, but I don't think you should defend Christianity. You don't have the knowledge of the problems and answers of theology to mount a credible defense to believers, let alone unbelievers. You let this pass without offering the most important counterargument to this list.
point taken, that's why i was going to let someone else take it up. I thought I knew a good deal but it seems I need to look more at my own religion and such before I can do a sufficient job against defending the views from people who know more than I.

[FuckYoCouch]

I learned a lot more about chemistry from this bloke called Len than I did by hurting myself. Pain teaches you, at most, that a course of action is painful. I learned not to stick forks in toasters because my parents told me that the electrical current going through me and grounding at my feet is potentially deadly. Pain is a crap teacher, and certainly not a teaching method employed by loving teachers (this is part of the reason we no longer see canes in schools).

As for it being a source of consciousness, not so much. The chemical reactions and electrical pulses in the brains we evolved over millions of years are the sole source of consciousness.

the sole origin of consciousness has nothing to do with biology.

[FuckYoCouch]

An omniscient teacher, that is omnipotent, and can therefore see when suffering happen and stop it before it happens.

Oh wait, that's your god!

But he let that man get stoned to death...

Why do you follow a god that thinks that stoning to death is an acceptable lesson, even though he knew that his followers were making mistakes, and new about those mistakes before they happened, and could have stopped those mistakes from happening so that there didn't have to be an inhumane punishment?

That is not a benevolent god, that is not a good teacher. Why do you follow him?

My Faith is between me and My God, not For you to understand.

as far as why i follow Christianity, Specifically Adventist beliefs, can be summed up in the Verse

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

i.E Idol Worship. Which is Practiced by Many different Religions. Including some Abrahamic ones.

[Jazzratt]

the sole origin of consciousness has nothing to do with biology.

Yes it does. Consciousness is a biological function. Unless you think we have "souls" or some bollocks like that.

[FuckYoCouch]

Yes it does. Consciousness is a biological function. Unless you think we have "souls" or some bollocks like that.



consciousness isnt a function. it is a state of mind ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

consciousness isnt a function. it is a state of mind ;)

This is a nonsensical statement. In order to have a state of mind, one needs a mind, ie consciousness.

[FuckYoCouch]

This is a nonsensical statement. In order to have a state of mind, one needs a mind, ie consciousness.

a comatose mind is still a mind ;)

[casper]

find me a better teacher than pain.
pleasure,sensation of power, accomplishment, cold logical analysis, they all are teachers. pain usually sucks as a teacher, if anything, it makes one rebel, unless the person is easily broken.

[FuckYoCouch]

pleasure,sensation of power, accomplishment, cold logical analysis, they all are teachers. pain usually sucks as a teacher, if anything, it makes one rebel, unless the person is easily broken.

even though ive seen a few turn out right using those "teachers." people whom are taught right and wrong through pain and their own experience, usually turn out to be the bright, upright ones

[Jazzratt]

consciousness isnt a function. it is a state of mind ;)

Of course it's a fucking function, do you think neurons fire for fun?


even though ive seen a few turn out right using those "teachers." people whom are taught right and wrong through pain and their own experience, usually turn out to be the bright, upright ones

The best example I can think of people taking the "pain as teacher" approach is parents that beat the shit out of their kids. This does not usually produce kids that know right from wrong, generally it produces angry bullies or mentally disturbed people prone to depression and personality disorders.

Reason is a far better teacher.

[FuckYoCouch]

Of course it's a fucking function, do you think neurons fire for fun?



The best example I can think of people taking the "pain as teacher" approach is parents that beat the shit out of their kids. This does not usually produce kids that know right from wrong, generally it produces angry bullies or mentally disturbed people prone to depression and personality disorders.

Reason is a far better teacher.

i was Raised on the switch. But my parents still Loved me, and showed me love. but i still got the point. also, you are thinking of the actual activity of the brain, not what it creates in the scope of the mind.

[Jazzratt]

i was Raised on the switch.

Having recently discovered what barbaric practice that is a euphemism for I can honestly say I pity you.


But my parents still Loved me, and showed me love.

Hitting you with a stick is not showing you love. If I were to hit an adult with a stick it would, rightly, be called assault - if I did it to an adult I claimed to "love" I would be called, again rightly, abusive. Why then is it morally defensible to do it to a child, someone much smaller and much weaker?

Parents that raise their hands against their own children are nothing but cowardly abusers.


but i still got the point. also, you are thinking of the actual activity of the brain, not what it creates in the scope of the mind.

What the hell are you talking about? I was talking about the origin of consciousness.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

What the hell are you talking about? I was talking about the origin of consciousness.The origin of consciousness in religion's point of view is imagination along with verses from a centuries old unreliable book with contradictions.

When Christian fundamentalists say that they will look back to their religion, they mean that they will take the centuries old book and find more excuses, making it agree with them.

I want evidence for the idea that consciousness does not come from biology. I want all my questions that I have asked on this thread, including the benevolence/omniscience question, answered. I want to know why Christian fundamentalists never say yes or no to the question on those verses for stoning to death, but I think I already know - they are making excuses, because they know that it is wrong, but they want it to be right.

[FuckYoCouch]

The origin of consciousness in religion's point of view is imagination along with verses from a centuries old unreliable book with contradictions.

When Christian fundamentalists say that they will look back to their religion, they mean that they will take the centuries old book and find more excuses, making it agree with them.

I want evidence for the idea that consciousness does not come from biology. I want all my questions that I have asked on this thread, including the benevolence/omniscience question, answered. I want to know why Christian fundamentalists never say yes or no to the question on those verses for stoning to death, but I think I already know - they are making excuses, because they know that it is wrong, but they want it to be right.

Y'know, you guys didn't understand what i was talking about when i said hte word Consciousness, just drop it. as far as the stoning passages, and all of your answers that you want, you wouldn't be happy, or understand the answers that i gave you. because if you did you would have stopped arguing a LONG time ago.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Y'know, you guys didn't understand what i was talking about when i said hte word Consciousness, just drop it. as far as the stoning passages, and all of your answers that you want, you wouldn't be happy, or understand the answers that i gave you. because if you did you would have stopped arguing a LONG time ago.

Do you agree with what your god did in the stoning passages?

Yes or no?

[FuckYoCouch]

Do you agree with what your god did in the stoning passages?

Yes or no?


Yes.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Yes.

Another Christian fundamentalist who thinks that his god can stone people to death for working on the Sabbath.

I thought that human society was more advanced than this...

[Jazzratt]

Y'know, you guys didn't understand what i was talking about when i said hte word Consciousness, just drop it. as far as the stoning passages, and all of your answers that you want, you wouldn't be happy, or understand the answers that i gave you. because if you did you would have stopped arguing a LONG time ago.

You are a really conceited little shit, to think that the reason we disagree with you is that we don't understand you is the fucking height of pretentious arrogance.

While I understand you're a misanthrope and would therefore support your god murdering people, most people view it as barbaric and your god, therefore, must be unworthy of worship.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Hammer, if you do not believe that (a)god exists, thats on you. but to try and defend your athiesm by saying "prove there is a god" is like saying "prove there isnt one" while both arguments being backed up by the most ignorant person ever. some people arent meant to argue in the defence of god. Mainly Baptists, Catholics and Jehovas Witnesses >.< xD but reclaimed ,
Dude, Pleased stop talking. you are Really embarrassing me. God Did Not Create a Suffering World. The Lack of following his word created it.
Actually, a notion of evil that rests on the privation of the good doesn't resolve the problem of evil. The atheists arguing in this thread are completely right to attack that position.

1) God is all powerful (understood as being able to do anything logically possible).
2) Everything God creates is good.
3) God created Human beings.
It necessarily follows
C) Human beings are good.

Now, any argument you offer (like free will) does not resolve the problem. For any given argument just insert N premise that has this form.

N) God created X (where X is the thing that "resolves" the problem of evil)
In this case
4) God creates free will (so humans don't have to "follow his word."

Atheists and agnostics have an easy time of it. They can just simply drop out 3 (among the other premises) and there would be no problem. However, all attempts to to add a premise that makes this argument work fails. So there problem must like in the premises. Again, atheists can say there is no God and that's a perfectly respectable position. However, the only premise that can really be altered is 1.

In this case, what is all powerful must be taken as the most powerful being that can necessarily exist (or create) the world. However, what this entails is God's inability to abolish all evil Himself. This entails that we, his creations, must aid in the abolishing of evil. That is to say, the Kingdom of Heaven is not a magic happy land that God forces on the Earth (because he can't), but rather a social human project that we must build on Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

[Reclaimed Dasein]

The Old Testament is still there, and the New Testament thinks so too:

Let me put this in stages:

1. God creates the earth because he is omnipotent. He is also omniscient, so he knows every event that will take place. Christians claim that he is benevolent.
[PROBLEM 1] - No scientific evidence for the existence of god.
[PROBLEM 2] - Claims of omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence are also not supported by scientific evidence. Your better avenue of attack was the problem of evil. This criticism misses the mark and any reflective religious person can avoid it in this way. "What is the scientific evidence for the possibility of world wide communism?" It's not something that requires evidence because any reflective Christian can claim that God is ontological and above all an ethical demand. I believe you mentioned a "scientific proof" for ethics, but I think the question is, which ethics? Consequentialism, Deontology, Aretaic, Anti-theory, etc?

Also, the question of scientific evidence is not at all clear. You seem to have a falsificationist view of science which does not seem to be the actual way science works. This is not the place to get into that discussion, but I recommend you read some philosophy of science.
[/URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology)
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science


2. A man works on the Sabbath and is stoned to death. Christians claimed that this is a "lesson".
[PROBLEM 1] - God is omniscient, he knew that this was going to happen.
[PROBLEM 2] - He is also omnipotent, but didn't stop this from happening. He is then not benevolent.This is easy. Christians whose claim this are stupid. That is all. In fact, Jesus specifically criticized the Pharisees who didn't like him traveling on Sunday. He used the example of a lamb that gets stuck in a ditch. He accused them of hypocrisy because they would go to get it out. So Christians who claim this is true just wrong.


3. Christians claim that this doesn't matter, because they have the New Testament.
[PROBLEM 1] - The Book of Matthew doesn't agree with the Christians.
[PROBLEM 2] - But even if it did, God knew from stage 1 that the New Testament would happen, so why did stage 2 happen? The New Testament can't be used as an excuse, and there's the cherry picking. Actually, you're cherry picking in this example, and quite mendaciously so. He immediately goes on to talk about murder.

21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.



25"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

It's clear from just this passage that the way in which the Law is being fulfilled is that it's being exceeded in a positive way. Before, one didn't kill so that one would not be killed, but now one must also be brotherly. In the next paragraph, he breaks with the local Jewish tradition by making harmony more important with than religious worship. Finally, he points out that it's more efficacious to have a mutual personal relationship with someone than one regulated by state power.


You can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and you can't prove that it doesn't - do you think that it might exist? What would most people say?
What follows from the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Pretty much nothing. What follows from God (of a genuine christian variety)? Universal human liberation and an abolishing of all oppressive structures.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

In this case, what is all powerful must be taken as the most powerful being that can necessarily exist (or create) the world. However, what this entails is God's inability to abolish all evil Himself. This entails that we, his creations, must aid in the abolishing of evil. That is to say, the Kingdom of Heaven is not a magic happy land that God forces on the Earth (because he can't), but rather a social human project that we must build on Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Once there has been scientific evidence for the existence of a god, then we can talk about theology.


Your better avenue of attack was the problem of evil. This criticism misses the mark and any reflective religious person can avoid it in this way. "What is the scientific evidence for the possibility of world wide communism?"

We can show that altruism exists using evidence, and from there world-wide communism can exist. But even if this wasn't the case, suffering could have been avoided by not creating humans, or by directing life as if it realised that it had free will when in reality it didn't.

This isn't how science works. For example, if evolution started again, there is no guarantee that it would have the same outcome.


It's not something that requires evidence because any reflective Christian can claim that God is ontological and above all an ethical demand.Evidence?


I believe you mentioned a "scientific proof" for ethics, but I think the question is, which ethics? Consequentialism, Deontology, Aretaic, Anti-theory, etc?I mentioned scientific evidence for altruism.


Also, the question of scientific evidence is not at all clear. You seem to have a falsificationist view of science which does not seem to be the actual way science works. This is not the place to get into that discussion, but I recommend you read some philosophy of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

It is very clear. The scientific method must be repeated by other scientists without the interference of ideas that have not passed the scientific method. This way, you can challenge the accepted ideas, but other scientists using this method must come to the same conclusion. No scientific evidence has been found for a god. None.




[b] Actually, you're cherry picking in this example, and quite mendaciously so. He immediately goes on to talk about murder.

It's clear from just this passage that the way in which the Law is being fulfilled is that it's being exceeded in a positive way. Before, one didn't kill so that one would not be killed, but now one must also be brotherly. In the next paragraph, he breaks with the local Jewish tradition by making harmony more important with than religious worship. Finally, he points out that it's more efficacious to have a mutual personal relationship with someone than one regulated by state power.The "out of context" argument. Even if this is true, this god is omniscient, this god knew that he was going to do this, yet the stoning still happened. This isn't benevolent.


What follows from the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Pretty much nothing. What follows from God (of a genuine christian variety)?Genuine? :laugh: How is it more "genuine" than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?


Universal human liberation:laugh:


and an abolishing of all oppressive structures.Apart from the rule of your god.

[FuckYoCouch]

you guys are the Stupidest educated people ive ever seen in my life -_-

[Jazzratt]

you guys are the Stupidest educated people ive ever seen in my life -_-

What the fuck are you on about? Like educated stupid, like the time cube guy or what?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

you guys are the Stupidest educated people ive ever seen in my life -_-

This is perhaps the essence of the religious mindset - anti-intellectual at its core, with a sneering contempt for education, reason and all forms of rational thinking.

[Lord Testicles]

Guys, stop it. He might kill you:


Deuteronomy, 13:6-9 :If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

Since he has a hard time understanding right from wrong.

[FuckYoCouch]

This is perhaps the essence of the religious mindset - anti-intellectual at its core, with a sneering contempt for education, reason and all forms of rational thinking.

trying to explain god with logic Is the problem. Not Education ;)

[Ele'ill]

true just asking why do they belive he will come to save them when they dont realize they can save themselfs


Maybe a god is on its way but we can still make this world a much better place before it gets here.

People feel powerless in this world and thus either become part of the problem, religious wish-washies, or anarchists.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

trying to explain god with logic Is the problem. Not Education ;)

That's because there is no logic in support of the existence of god(s).

[Reclaimed Dasein]

trying to explain god with logic Is the problem. Not Education ;)
Umm, I hate to be all historical, but the foundations for modern logic were developed in order to argue for God. I want to be clear, both propositional logic and predicate calculus are clearly children of the enlightenment, but they had their start on the ground of refined Aristotelian logic that mostly perfected in the Medieval period.

Also, if you want people to use logic when explaining God, I'd ask which logic? Do you want an intuitionist logic? Predicate logic? Propositional logic? Syllogistic logic? Binary logic? Multivalent logic? Paraconsistant logic?

Also, it seems that the understanding of science is incredibly lacking.


Once there has been scientific evidence for the existence of a god, then we can talk about theology.

It is very clear. The scientific method must be repeated by other scientists without the interference of ideas that have not passed the scientific method. This way, you can challenge the accepted ideas, but other scientists using this method must come to the same conclusion. No scientific evidence has been found for a god. None.

I don't think you understand what science is and you didn't read any of the links that I posted. So, if you know what science is, is String Theory science? It was a single confirmed experiment that confirmed general relativity's adoption into science. You seem to have a view on science shared by people who don't know anything about science. So, also, I think it's incumbent upon you at this point to show what constitutes "scientific evidence" since we have two clear counter examples.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Also, it seems that the understanding of science is incredibly lacking.

Yes because if someone suggests theology then their understanding of science is definitely incredibly lacking.


I don't think you understand what science is and you didn't read any of the links that I posted. So, if you know what science is, is String Theory science? It was a single confirmed experiment that confirmed general relativity's adoption into science. You seem to have a view on science shared by people who don't know anything about science.So to you, the world's leading scientists do not know anything about science?

And yet you think that your myth of theology should even be considered?


So, also, I think it's incumbent upon you at this point to show what constitutes "scientific evidence" since we have two clear counter examples.I have already explained why scientific evidence is considered useful, because it relies on repetition and data. The two together can become evidence, which arrives at a conclusion. This is an extremely basic explanation of what scientific evidence is, I haven't mentioned reliability and validity. Over time, the accuracy of the scientific method improves, as history (and science's results) have shown, and with the development of more accurate and numerous evidence. Google isn't that difficult to use.

So where is the scientific evidence for this god?

[danyboy27]

That's because there is no logic in support of the existence of god(s).
logic have nothing to do with faith, and never will.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Yes because if someone suggests theology then their understanding of science is definitely incredibly lacking.

So to you, the world's leading scientists do not know anything about science?

And yet you think that your myth of theology should even be considered?

I have already explained why scientific evidence is considered useful, because it relies on repetition and data. The two together can become evidence, which arrives at a conclusion. This is an extremely basic explanation of what scientific evidence is, I haven't mentioned reliability and validity. Over time, the accuracy of the scientific method improves, as history (and science's results) have shown, and with the development of more accurate and numerous evidence. Google isn't that difficult to use.

So where is the scientific evidence for this god?
So you are apparently unwilling or unable to use the scientific method in regards to science. Fantastic. Why don't you show me the research or work done on what science consists of, rather than giving me an abstract unverified principle. I've provided arguments, you've not addressed any of them. Until you're willing or able, I don't see what your position is reasonable, consistent, or "logical."

[modern.day.cheguevara]

Comrades if there was a "god" then where was he during the depperesions and wars of humanity. where was he when the entire European countinant called for him to save them from the Plague, world war 1 and 2, where was he when the Great depperesion ocured so comrades why do they belive in him so much but they dont realize he doesnt come

Without human suffering, where is life? If there was no illness, there would be no need for doctors, If there was no hunger, there would be no need for food. If there was no Sadness, there would be no happiness. If there was no death, human kind as we know it would crumble. Life would be nothing more than sitting around, fucking and eating. Where is the fun of that? Where is the struggle? Where is the satisfaction of eating after a long days work? The Human race is founded on discovery and analytical thinking. If you take away all this, there is no discovery, no need for knowledge, no need for learning. People who complain about suffering are no more than people who do not have the means of discovering ways to adapt to that suffering. :p

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Without human suffering, where is life? If there was no illness, there would be no need for doctors,

Well, duh. But the fact remains that it's there. In fact we have a good idea why there is illness, and our knowledge completely in line with the hypothesis that the universe and life within it was created entirely by natural forces, and goes against the hypothesis of a loving God.


If there was no hunger, there would be no need for food.Again, the laws of the universe as we know them require some form of energy transfer for active processes, including life. That doesn't mean that there aren't better ways of doing it. Human energy intake is ridiculously complicated and inefficient, exactly the sort of system that a completely natural universe would arrive at. Artificial technology is vastly more efficient and powerful, and much better designed.


If there was no Sadness, there would be no happiness.Prove it.


If there was no death, human kind as we know it would crumble.Again, prove it.


Life would be nothing more than sitting around, fucking and eating.Bullshit. People would get bored and do other things.


Where is the fun of that? Where is the struggle? Where is the satisfaction of eating after a long days work?Why would people all of a sudden lose the motivation to set their own challenges and rewards? People would still have hobbies, knowledge to learn, discoveries to be made, a desire to socialise, projects to work on with others. Such things are not motivated by pain or evil.


The Human race is founded on discovery and analytical thinking. If you take away all this, there is no discovery, no need for knowledge, no need for learning.Why are you equating the existance of "evil" with discovery and analytical thinking?

There would still be discoveries to be made, and analytical thinking doesn't benefit from pain or evil.


People who complain about suffering are no more than people who do not have the means of discovering ways to adapt to that suffering. :pIt's not a complaint - it's a valid argument against the benevolent, omnipotent god.

[Feslin]

because if he helped us all the time we would become to reliant on him and we wouldnt really achieve anything.

Interestingly another tenant of Christianity is that we are ENTIRELY reliant on "Him" (by which I mean Obama, obviously).

[Karzak]

Comrades if there was a "god" then where was he during the depperesions and wars of humanity. where was he when the entire European countinant called for him to save them from the Plague, world war 1 and 2, where was he when the Great depperesion ocured so comrades why do they belive in him so much but they dont realize he doesnt come

God is merely an exaggerated sense of self,the super-ego craving adoration from all others,and by understanding this one should realize that religion can never be a subject for rational discussion.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Interestingly another tenant of Christianity is that we are ENTIRELY reliant on "Him" (by which I mean Obama, obviously).
This is entirely too delicious. Kudos to you good sir.

[DaughterJones]

If there were two brothers who lived next door to one another and one brother's house was on fire and the other brother had a water hose but did nothing who is more guilty the brother who watched and did nothing while the other's house was on fire ? Or the parent who gave birth to them ? Reguardless of if you believe in God or not I think people need to see that we are just as guilty as God (or "God") if not more if we do nothing about human suffering because some of us are fortunate enough to have the tools to help.

[DaughterJones]

Cuz if he a god he has the power to. And wouldn't want his creations to suffer.
Humanity is like the dumb ass teenager who keeps screwing the same things up and he may give them a nudge or a little help from time to time but after awhile if they dont get it they need to learn and even suffer for their mistakes and stupidity

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Humanity is like the dumb ass teenager who keeps screwing the same things up and he may give them a nudge or a little help from time to time but after awhile if they dont get it they need to learn and even suffer for their mistakes and stupidity
This is a terrible argument. Does the true defense of God hang on a dubious analogy? How is being a parent like being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? If you're going to argue for God then it seems that your arguments should fit these three properties without analogy. An appeal to a dubious analogy and an appeal to "faith" only really say, "I don't know enough about my religion to defend it rigorously." Unless by "God" you mean something different from the christian God.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Without human suffering, where is life? If there was no illness, there would be no need for doctors, If there was no hunger, there would be no need for food. If there was no Sadness, there would be no happiness. If there was no death, human kind as we know it would crumble. Life would be nothing more than sitting around, fucking and eating. Where is the fun of that? Where is the struggle? Where is the satisfaction of eating after a long days work? The Human race is founded on discovery and analytical thinking. If you take away all this, there is no discovery, no need for knowledge, no need for learning. People who complain about suffering are no more than people who do not have the means of discovering ways to adapt to that suffering. :p

People do not need to suffer for you to find meaning in your life, you create that meaning. If you need to see others suffer to find meaning, what does that say about you? Because i don't see you causing yourself to suffer, i don't see you living in abject poverty in a 3rd world country.
You need to stop Stockholming suffering, without it life can have far greater meaning than the lives of mere upkeep we are forced to live now. We can live for far greater causes than just to shit out the next generation.

[Jazzratt]

If there were two brothers who lived next door to one another and one brother's house was on fire and the other brother had a water hose but did nothing who is more guilty the brother who watched and did nothing while the other's house was on fire ? Or the parent who gave birth to them ? Reguardless of if you believe in God or not I think people need to see that we are just as guilty as God (or "God") if not more if we do nothing about human suffering because some of us are fortunate enough to have the tools to help.

This analogy sucks. Saying the fire was a blazing inferno that the (non-incinerating) brother could do nothing about (i.e all the suffering in the world) whereas the parent is perfectly capable of putting it out (i.e omnipotent, for the sake of this analogy) would be far more accurate. Then it is obvious who is being neglectful.


Humanity is like the dumb ass teenager who keeps screwing the same things up and he may give them a nudge or a little help from time to time but after awhile if they dont get it they need to learn and even suffer for their mistakes and stupidity

See a professional about your self esteem problems. Also, if that's your approach to parenting, never have kids.

[DaughterJones]

This is a terrible argument. Does the true defense of God hang on a dubious analogy? How is being a parent like being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? If you're going to argue for God then it seems that your arguments should fit these three properties without analogy. An appeal to a dubious analogy and an appeal to "faith" only really say, "I don't know enough about my religion to defend it rigorously." Unless by "God" you mean something different from the christian God.
That wasnt my scientific argument for God exsisting the question was "if God exsists why doesnt he step in and fix all of the things we do wrong?" . The question was not "can you state specific scientific facts that are proof of God? " Im not trying to make a scientific argument at all. Secondly, seeing as we are not debating particular Gods like the christian God or hindu Gods etc we cannot define God as "omniscient", "omipotent", and or "omnibenevolent" because each of them have different belief systems.

[DaughterJones]

This analogy sucks. Saying the fire was a blazing inferno that the (non-incinerating) brother could do nothing about (i.e all the suffering in the world) whereas the parent is perfectly capable of putting it out (i.e omnipotent, for the sake of this analogy) would be far more accurate. Then it is obvious who is being neglectful.



See a professional about your self esteem problems. Also, if that's your approach to parenting, never have kids.


If the condition of the world is something that we can do nothing about dont you find it a bit futile to have political and social ideology ? Humanity does in fact have the ability to turn things around and in some cases we have the problem is apathy ( the brother watching as the house burns) . I wouldnt want to belive in a God that steps in and fixes everything for us. What would be the point ? As for my "self esteem problems" there is no need to see a professional i am heavily self medicated:laugh: ( only kidding of course). As for parenting you give your children everything they need to make it and if they choose to fail you allow them because you can not step in and make everything nice nice . If you do not fail you do not learn.

[Bud Struggle]

If the condition of the world is something that we can do nothing about dont you find it a bit futile to have political and social ideology ? Humanity does in fact have the ability to turn things around and in some cases we have the problem is apathy ( the brother watching as the house burns) . I wouldnt want to belive in a God that steps in and fixes everything for us. What would be the point ? As for my "self esteem problems" there is no need to see a professional i am heavily self medicated:laugh: ( only kidding of course). As for parenting you give your children everything they need to make it and if they choose to fail you allow them because you can not step in and make everything nice nice . If you do not fail you do not learn.

Great post, sister! :thumbup:

Welcome to RevLeft! (Well, I can only actually welcome you to OI.
I'm not allowed in the house. :()

[Jazzratt]

If the condition of the world is something that we can do nothing about dont you find it a bit futile to have political and social ideology ?

No. Because politics and society are created by humans, thus changeable. Volcanoes, hurricanes and everything else that your god allegedly spits at us is not. There is absolutely fuck all I can do about people being buried under tons of ash (ala pompeii) even though I want to.


Humanity does in fact have the ability to turn things around

Tell you what, next time there is a fucking great typhoon and people's posessions are being swept away and they are being fatally slammed against walls you put your fucking money where your mouth is. Otherwise shut your ignorant mouth.


and in some cases we have the problem is apathy ( the brother watching as the house burns) .

Yeah and in some cases the problem is an earthquake. Where the fuck are you and your loving god then?


I wouldnt want to belive in a God that steps in and fixes everything for us.

Good. You shouldn't want to believe in a god at all, considering there isn't one.


What would be the point ?

Well otherwise your god hates you. On balance it's better to believe in a god that does everything for me than one who is actively trying to kill me.


As for my "self esteem problems" there is no need to see a professional i am heavily self medicated:laugh: ( only kidding of course).

No. Seriously if you believe that you are that worthless in the eyes of your god you should either stop worshipping it or get help.


As for parenting you give your children everything they need to make it and if they choose to fail you allow them because you can not step in and make everything nice nice . If you do not fail you do not learn.

What the fuck kind of statement is "if they choose to fail"? No one chooses to fail you stupid ****, that's just fucking laughable. Yeah people sometimes fail and learn from it, but that's no reason to not pick them up when they fall. Unless your god is a Randroid prick this is pretty irrelevant :lol:.

[Bud Struggle]

No. Because politics and society are created by humans, thus changeable. Volcanoes, hurricanes and everything else that your god allegedly spits at us is not. There is absolutely fuck all I can do about people being buried under tons of ash (ala pompeii) even though I want to. Well, I was tought that there was some grand design of history-- a science! Communism was the preordained future. Are there lots of chances for futures?




Tell you what, next time there is a fucking great typhoon and people's posessions are being swept away and they are being fatally slammed against walls you put your fucking money where your mouth is. Otherwise shut your ignorant mouth. So we are robuts--tied to our fate? You can't make your own world? I certainly did--maybe you just need some help making yours.




Good. You shouldn't want to believe in a god at all, considering there isn't one. There's a God.




Well otherwise your god hates you. On balance it's better to believe in a god that does everything for me than one who is actively trying to kill me. How about one that wants you to grow up and be a human being?




No. Seriously if you believe that you are that worthless in the eyes of your god you should either stop worshipping it or get help. Or realize that God and His world is about love--not anger.




What the fuck kind of statement is "if they choose to fail"? No one chooses to fail you stupid ****, that's just fucking laughable. Yeah people sometimes fail and learn from it, but that's no reason to not pick them up when they fall. Unless your god is a Randroid prick this is pretty irrelevant :lol:.

Jazzratt-winners "chose" to win like losers "chose" to fail. I win because I chose to. And for no other reason--I'm kicked down. I make mistakes, people beat on me, but I win in the end--LITERALLY each and every time--because I CHOOSE to win.

People fail because they choose to fail. That's life--there's winners and there's loosers and there's people that chose to cry about losing--they're called Communists.

And there is a God. Really.

[DaughterJones]

No. Because politics and society are created by humans, thus changeable. Volcanoes, hurricanes and everything else that your god allegedly spits at us is not. There is absolutely fuck all I can do about people being buried under tons of ash (ala pompeii) even though I want to.



Tell you what, next time there is a fucking great typhoon and people's posessions are being swept away and they are being fatally slammed against walls you put your fucking money where your mouth is. Otherwise shut your ignorant mouth.



Yeah and in some cases the problem is an earthquake. Where the fuck are you and your loving god then?



Good. You shouldn't want to believe in a god at all, considering there isn't one.



Well otherwise your god hates you. On balance it's better to believe in a god that does everything for me than one who is actively trying to kill me.



No. Seriously if you believe that you are that worthless in the eyes of your god you should either stop worshipping it or get help.



What the fuck kind of statement is "if they choose to fail"? No one chooses to fail you stupid ****, that's just fucking laughable. Yeah people sometimes fail and learn from it, but that's no reason to not pick them up when they fall. Unless your god is a Randroid prick this is pretty irrelevant :lol:.


Natural disasters are simply that people die and its a fact of life not an example of cruelty. As for me "shutting my ignorant mouth and putting my money where my mouth is" I have contributed funds and time to the best of my capability when disasters happen I am also a member of food not bombs so i regularaly donate food and clothes to people. I was hoping it would be possible for two people to be civil with one another though they disagree especially because chances are politically we agree on alot of things but i happen to have philosophical disagreements with you. There is really no point in having discourse with someone who cannot be adult enough to make a point with someone a stupid ****. I havent been disrespectful to anyone and I expect the same in return.

[AtteroDominatus]

I love how the people who argue for God are nice and considerate and the ones who argue against are often mean and heartless bastards. I'm beginning to think people like Jazz just like being arrogant and hateful pricks that just kick everyone's faces in and tell them to fuck off every time they don't fit into the eprfect communist mold.

Jones, how dare you have a fucking opinion! you should know better, just become a mindless servant that follows all communist ideology and instead argues about who is more pute in the left wing! shame on you for being an individual :p (as Tom said, welcome, hope to see more of you around here. this place needs some good individuals who break the mold :3 )

[casper]

If the condition of the world is something that we can do nothing about dont you find it a bit futile to have political and social ideology ?
? there is no "real" world. however there are different perspectives and those arise to ideology. its not futile at all. i'm not sure this statement really even makes sense to me. it just seems really bizzare


Humanity does in fact have the ability to turn things around and in some cases we have the problem is apathy ( the brother watching as the house burns) freewill is a nonsensical term.



. I wouldnt want to belive in a God that steps in and fixes everything for us. What would be the point ? As for my "self esteem problems" there is no need to see a professional i am heavily self medicated:laugh: ( only kidding of course).
if god did it right, there would be nothing for him to fix. god as most christens describe him is a logical self-contradiction.


As for parenting you give your children everything they need to make it and if they choose to fail you allow them because you can not step in and make everything nice nice . If you do not fail you do not learn.
no one chooses to fail. they reach out and explore and try to find what they want, sometimes its out of reach. free will doesn't exist, rather we should have apathy and help people up when they fall and be there to help them walk instead of letting them crawl or be trampled to death becuse they might be to weak to stand on their own. we should be there for people, however you can only really help those who want to be helped in some cases, sometimes your powerless, if they won't take your arm, the best you can do is stay by their side. also, are you suggesting that people do not learn by 'succeeding"? because psychology and sociology would disagree with you.

[butterfly]

Your god is the cruelest entity to ever exist.
Here's a thought, maybe the bible was written as a test to see if you would blindly conform to such hatred and oppression.
A question; if suffering is a means of growing why did your friend create thousands of painful ailments instead of one?
And can you address JazzRatts point about natural disasters?

[DaughterJones]

I love how the people who argue for God are nice and considerate and the ones who argue against are often mean and heartless bastards. I'm beginning to think people like Jazz just like being arrogant and hateful pricks that just kick everyone's faces in and tell them to fuck off every time they don't fit into the eprfect communist mold.

Jones, how dare you have a fucking opinion! you should know better, just become a mindless servant that follows all communist ideology and instead argues about who is more pute in the left wing! shame on you for being an individual :p (as Tom said, welcome, hope to see more of you around here. this place needs some good individuals who break the mold :3 )

Eh, I don't like to peg people who dont believe in God as heartless bastards there was a point when i was agnostic and there was a point when i was atheist so thats unfair. Most are adult enough to have a civil conversation and agree to disagree however there is something about the internet that prevents this from happening most of the time lol.I dont consider myself a communist though ideally id hope for anarchist collectivism because i think eventually you are bound to have a greedy ruler who is not a communist who would exploit the communist system but thats another debate for another forum I suppose. I dont think movements last or thrive nor are they taken seriously though if they do not allow for individuality because it often leads to dogmatic rhetoric and people shoving their ideas down your throat (which ironically the same problem with religion today) Anywho, thanks for the warm welcome.:thumbup1:

[AtteroDominatus]

hatred and oppression? sure, churches have been corrupt, but think about it, religion preaches getting together and belonging to equality. it's about loving everyone, accepting different views, being tolerant, and loving. yes, sometimes people who are religious do not live by these doctrines. True, some people ignore it. And indeed, there are sketchy things in the bible.

In some countries, they refuse to accept aid from other countries. However, when I;ve studied such things, they will often accept aid from churches. Even if you believe a God is cruel and evil, you cannot claim all churches are with backed proof. churches help people, and keep people aware and help support those that many turn a blind eye to.

Here's another thought: maybe you're just too narrow minded and conceited to respect other people's opinions?

EDIT:

@Jones: i don't peg them as such, either. I have atheist and agnostic friends whom I love to death. I am merely saying the majority of people who argue against religion here are hostile and bash anyone with an opinion. Which is dissapointing, especially because I expected people here to be more open and accepting of others.

[DaughterJones]

Your god is the cruelest entity to ever exist.
Here's a thought, maybe the bible was written as a test to see if you would blindly conform to such hatred and oppression.
A question; if suffering is a means of growing why did your friend create thousands of painful ailments instead of one?
And can you address JazzRatts point about natural disasters?

To assume that because i believe in God i believe in everything in the bible which was written by men and translated time and time again is an error because i dont. God and i are on our own terms and i dont need someone else writings to tell me how to have a relationship w/God or humanity.
as for your question about suffering as a means of growing i believe that is because people are individuals and what is an ailment to me may be easily overcome by you. As for natural disaster people die it is a fact of life and when they die they no longer feel pain as for those left behind there are lessons to learn such as appreciating life i know i learned alot about appreciating life and the fact that tomorrow is not promised when a friend of mine died at a young age. It seems like an unfortunate and painful process because it is but it causes growth and my triumphs and tragedies have made me who i am so im not going to scorn God for them.

[casper]

maby i should be arrogant and hateful, it might get some attention. i have a feeling i may not get a response on my last post on this thread. which i would appreciate one.

[AtteroDominatus]

Edit: oops, nm. can't delete, either @[email protected]''

[DaughterJones]

? there is no "real" world. however there are different perspectives and those arise to ideology. its not futile at all. i'm not sure this statement really even makes sense to me. it just seems really bizzare
freewill is a nonsensical term.


if god did it right, there would be nothing for him to fix. god as most christens describe him is a logical self-contradiction.

no one chooses to fail. they reach out and explore and try to find what they want, sometimes its out of reach. free will doesn't exist, rather we should have apathy and help people up when they fall and be there to help them walk instead of letting them crawl or be trampled to death becuse they might be to weak to stand on their own. we should be there for people, however you can only really help those who want to be helped in some cases, sometimes your powerless, if they won't take your arm, the best you can do is stay by their side. also, are you suggesting that people do not learn by 'succeeding"? because psychology and sociology would disagree with you.



I did not reply to you initially because alot of the statements were already discussed and explained but ... 1.)the real world statement was a response to someone else who was suggesting there is nothing we can do about the worlds problems.
2.) That is simply a difference in philosophy to me if there is no goal to work towards or no struggle there is no reason to exsist. To have no purpose in this life seems very boring and if everything if peachy keen constantly we wouldnt know it. There needs to be contrast how do you know you are a leftist without a right wing for example( i see the right wing as the problem we must overcome haha).
3.) There are people who make a choice to fail people are not hopeless floaters with no concept of what is going on around them. Do not get me wrong though i do not define failure as making mistakes or having unfortunate circumstances and trying to get back up because people need a helping hand sometimes. i define failure as the continual choice to throw your hands up and do nothing or the continual choice to choose to do things that you know are not helping you. For example i used to work in casino and we got a homeless guy who came in and asked for change i used to always give him some cash to go next door and buy himself a pizza i would even go next door to make sure he got it but after a time or to he began to spend that money on beer he made a choice to fail.

[casper]

there does need to be contrast, however suffering is not needed for joy, sadness and happyness are not defined as the opposites of each other for me, i also know that i have experience different sensations at about the same time, simultaneously, i've experience both joy and sadness in the same moment. emotions are not a meer continuum for me, latly i've been hit with a sort of depression and arrogance. and and more recently a nilishtic confidence and happyness. There would still be plenty of contrast and things to work for with out suffering. there being no universial point is great from my perspective. i like it, it allows for the delusion of having the power to create your own point. there is something powerfull for me in knowing that there is no universial meaning. also, a all powerfull god could make it such that suffering wasn't needed(if it was actually needed) if it wanted to. " 'God' is Dead" for me. it all really depends on how you define god though. i have some ideas that might be considered spirtual or mystic, or at least has their ties to them. "the will to power" by a certain german philosopher is a amazing book, i want to get more of nietzche, and like 6 other authors i found books by at the book store to day, i could stay forever at a good book store, the library usually just doesn't have such a good selection. any ways, i agree with alot of what he wrote as i intepreted it when i read it, so that may give some back round to where i may be coming from in some of my arguments, not all of them though, i am my own man as much as i can be.
the homeless guy may of been a alcoholic. escape, i can understand the desire to get lost in a bottle. not the best "decision"....i am a determinist or something like that, if he was fine with his cardboard home he really didn't fail by his own standards. failure and success requires standards.
thanks for replying.

[Robert]

I havent been disrespectful to anyone and I expect the same in return.

You clearly came to the wrong place. But you will be respected by all the capitalists here, without exception that I can think of.

[communistsecular]

So you comrades have started believing in the existence of god!!!??? Now thats hilarious!!:laugh:

[Revolutionary Youth]

So you comrades have started believing in the existence of god!!!??? Now thats hilarious!!:laugh:
what the heck?:confused:

[ZeroNowhere]

3.) There are people who make a choice to fail people are not hopeless floaters with no concept of what is going on around them. Do not get me wrong though i do not define failure as making mistakes or having unfortunate circumstances and trying to get back up because people need a helping hand sometimes. i define failure as the continual choice to throw your hands up and do nothing or the continual choice to choose to do things that you know are not helping you. For example i used to work in casino and we got a homeless guy who came in and asked for change i used to always give him some cash to go next door and buy himself a pizza i would even go next door to make sure he got it but after a time or to he began to spend that money on beer he made a choice to fail.
I don't see how this is anything more than making an assumption of free will and then being judgmental based on it.


Your god is the cruelest entity to ever exist.
Well, that depends. If one is going by the fire-and-brimstone junk, then yes. I mean, even the 'free will' nonsense can't justify it, though it does work pretty well in messing up law systems. On the other hand, it seems to have become fashionable nowadays to claim that hell is merely 'separation from god', which is fine by me. Of course, this is then followed by statements like 'God is everything that is good', which make no sense whatsoever.


If there were two brothers who lived next door to one another and one brother's house was on fire and the other brother had a water hose but did nothing who is more guilty the brother who watched and did nothing while the other's house was on fire ? Or the parent who gave birth to them ? Reguardless of if you believe in God or not I think people need to see that we are just as guilty as God (or "God") if not more if we do nothing about human suffering because some of us are fortunate enough to have the tools to help.
Bad analogy. Regardless of the fact that I view being judgmental as, to wit, sinful, there's a huge difference between a person's parents and a god that could put out the fire or get the brother to do it just by saying, "K, can this shit happen? Wheee." So, evidently, the parents in your analogy would have a hose too, and not used it, but rather just watched and did nothing. So presumably they're guilty too?


Natural disasters are simply that people die and its a fact of life not an example of cruelty.
It's a fact of life that a god could easily stop. So then, it's cruelty.

[DaughterJones]

there does need to be contrast, however suffering is not needed for joy, sadness and happyness are not defined as the opposites of each other for me, i also know that i have experience different sensations at about the same time, simultaneously, i've experience both joy and sadness in the same moment. emotions are not a meer continuum for me, latly i've been hit with a sort of depression and arrogance. and and more recently a nilishtic confidence and happyness. There would still be plenty of contrast and things to work for with out suffering. there being no universial point is great from my perspective. i like it, it allows for the delusion of having the power to create your own point. there is something powerfull for me in knowing that there is no universial meaning. also, a all powerfull god could make it such that suffering wasn't needed(if it was actually needed) if it wanted to. " 'God' is Dead" for me. it all really depends on how you define god though. i have some ideas that might be considered spirtual or mystic, or at least has their ties to them. "the will to power" by a certain german philosopher is a amazing book, i want to get more of nietzche, and like 6 other authors i found books by at the book store to day, i could stay forever at a good book store, the library usually just doesn't have such a good selection. any ways, i agree with alot of what he wrote as i intepreted it when i read it, so that may give some back round to where i may be coming from in some of my arguments, not all of them though, i am my own man as much as i can be.
the homeless guy may of been a alcoholic. escape, i can understand the desire to get lost in a bottle. not the best "decision"....i am a determinist or something like that, if he was fine with his cardboard home he really didn't fail by his own standards. failure and success requires standards.
thanks for replying.

One can experience the two at the same time but how would you define sadness or recognize it if you did not know joy. It's like being upset because you miss someone but happy because you enjoyed your time with them. You would not be able to indentify how it feels to miss them if you had not first had the pleasure of being in their company. The definition of God varies from person to person hell it varies for me at time so thats a philisophical debate i'd rather not get into because it could go on for literally centuries. As for the homeless man I agree that if he were living in bliss it would be fine but if he were living in bliss why the need to escape from the world via a bottle? Anywho, it was great having a dialogue with you without all of the silly name calling:thumbup1:

[DaughterJones]

You clearly came to the wrong place. But you will be respected by all the capitalists here, without exception that I can think of.
Lol, I find that quite strange because in real life i get the least respect from the right.... it's the unfortunate problem of having my own ideas and not towing the party lines...somehow some people manage to define certain politcal ideas (generally anything not on the right) as "unGodly" and some people(generally on the left) think that my believing in God makes me a person deserving of less respect who couldnt possibly agree with them on anything. I should be used to it though i fail to fit most stereotypes and i take a bit of pride in that fact.

[Robert]

Well, "right" is relative, isn't it? Most of the capitalists I refer to here do not call for the abolition of taxes and social programs, nor compulsory military service, nor prayer in school. Nor do many of them "control the means of production."

As such, I guess their capitalist credentials are subject to debate.

But I can't imagine even one of them attempting to dehumanize you just because they disagree with you. There is the occasional fascist who drifts in and out and flames with gusto, but they even think I am a "jew," whatever that is.

p.s. <toeing>

I didn't say we weren't fussy snobs at times.

[DaughterJones]

Well, "right" is relative, isn't it? Most of the capitalists I refer to here do not call for the abolition of taxes and social programs, nor compulsory military service, nor prayer in school. Nor do many of them "control the means of production."

As such, I guess their capitalist credentials are subject to debate.

But I can't imagine even one of them attempting to dehumanize you just because they disagree with you. There is the occasional fascist who drifts in and out and flames with gusto, but they even think I am a "jew," whatever that is.

p.s. <toeing>

I didn't say we weren't fussy snobs at times.

Ha , why is it that everyone is either a "jew" ( they have a strage definition of a jewish person) or a "jewish co-conspirator" with those idiots?

[Brother No. 1]

This thread was about why do we seek gods help to Does god exis.

[AtteroDominatus]

well, people started challenging the actual existence, so naturally people who believe in Him will defend him with their views. people turn to him, regardless of if he comes, because they need a reason, whatever that reason may be. they don't know what else to do, in short. whether they believe he will help, whether they just want someone to listen, or just want a sense that things will get better.

and then there is the whole arguement whether or not he does come, or in what form, or is actually real, which is where all the debate started.

[Brother No. 1]

Yes that is pretty much was sums it all up Comrade exactly right.

[casper]

how would you define sadness or recognize it if you did not know joy.
why would you need to know the other to define one? one isn't defined as the opposite or the absence of the other for me. its kinda like asking how would i know what a fish looks like if i didn't know what a bird looks like. (their both animals, but different)



As for the homeless man I agree that if he were living in bliss it would be fine but if he were living in bliss why the need to escape from the world via a bottle?

i was assuming, he may of just liked getting drunk. among other possibilities.


Anywho, it was great having a dialogue with you without all of the silly name calling:thumbup1: of course. labels have their utility, but sometimes they are rather useless. no use to use them if they arn't beneficial.

[Jazzratt]

Natural disasters are simply that people die and its a fact of life not an example of cruelty.

Yes but if you presume an all knowing and all powerful god the cruelty comes from its reticence to act. It's either incapable (because it isn't real or recognisable as a "god") or it's malevolent. Take your pick.


As for me "shutting my ignorant mouth and putting my money where my mouth is" I have contributed funds and time to the best of my capability when disasters happen I am also a member of food not bombs so i regularaly donate food and clothes to people.

I meant "money" figuratively. I didn't mean "wax lyrical about what you do to assuage your liberal guilt" I meant "actually go out there and see how far it gets you".


I was hoping it would be possible for two people to be civil with one another though they disagree especially because chances are politically we agree on alot of things but i happen to have philosophical disagreements with you.

I'd kind of hoped that we'd be over the same waves of nauseating morons making the same excuses for their S&M mythology. Looks like we've both been disappointed.


There is really no point in having discourse with someone who cannot be adult enough to make a point with someone a stupid ****. I havent been disrespectful to anyone and I expect the same in return.

What have you done to earn respect? You've come here and made stupid points, I see no reason to treat you like anything other than an imbecilic twat.


I love how the people who argue for God are nice and considerate and the ones who argue against are often mean and heartless bastards.

:lol: We're mean and heartless? We're not arguing that things like this:

http://iconicionic.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/chilevolcano.jpg

Are the will of an entity that is supposed to love us.

(Incidentally, on a scale of one to ten how much love do you imagine these people were feeling in the final horrific moments they are forever preserved in? http://www.romeinlimousine.com/images/pompei2.jpg?)


I'm beginning to think people like Jazz just like being arrogant and hateful pricks that just kick everyone's faces in and tell them to fuck off every time they don't fit into the eprfect communist mold.

I will admit I have very little time for dickheads, yes.


Jones, how dare you have a fucking opinion! you should know better, just become a mindless servant that follows all communist ideology and instead argues about who is more pute in the left wing!

Don't be fucking stupid. Just because the opinions you're facing are different from yours doesn't mean they weren't arrived at logically. To characterise anyone that hasn't bought into your mythology as "a mindless servent that follows all communist ideology" is a laughably ironic mischaracterisation.


shame on you for being an individual :p (as Tom said, welcome, hope to see more of you around here. this place needs some good individuals who break the mold :3 )

"Breaking the mould" for the sake sake of it isn't at all admirable. Considered opinions that stand up to cursory scrutiny, yes, but simply adopting a set of ideas because they are not common amongst your peers is just feeble minded.


To assume that because i believe in God i believe in everything in the bible which was written by men and translated time and time again is an error because i dont.

Fine. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that you still believe in god as the creator of every tectonic plate, of the weather systems which causes tornados (and flooding, and hurricanes and so on) and of every little hole in the earth from which the deadly heat of lava spills? And perhaps that god is even looking over us now but refusing to lift a finger to save so much as one burning child?


God and i are on our own terms and i dont need someone else writings to tell me how to have a relationship w/God or humanity.

What do you mean you and your god have a relationship? Are you delusional too?


as for your question about suffering as a means of growing i believe that is because people are individuals and what is an ailment to me may be easily overcome by you.

We have differing immune systems, ergo it is morally defensible to allow disease to run its course even if you can stop it with minimal effort (as I imagine the creator of the entire sodding universe would be quite capable of)?


As for natural disaster people die it is a fact of life

I don't feel bad because people die, but because - if you're right - there is a sociopathic entity that could prevent it at any point and simply doesn't.


and when they die they no longer feel pain

Or joy. Or boredom. Or love. Or anything at all. Because they're fucking dead. They've been robbed of their conciousness.


as for those left behind there are lessons to learn such as appreciating life i know i learned alot about appreciating life and the fact that tomorrow is not promised when a friend of mine died at a young age.

Why is this lesson so necessary that your god allows this all to happen? Since you are on special terms with it perhaps you could ask it for me: is it incapable or is it evil.


It seems like an unfortunate and painful process because it is but it causes growth and my triumphs and tragedies have made me who i am so im not going to scorn God for them.

I'm not going to scorn god either, because it isn't real. It's a fairly tale made so that barely-functioning lobotomised chimps like yourself have something to cling to. However if it did exist I would certainly have a thing or two to say to it about my tradgedies. I think I would go beyond scorning it, perhaps into barely lucid and high volume ranting at it in fact - given that it seems infinietly cruel.

[AtteroDominatus]

agreed, pompeii was very sad :< I went there as a kid and thinking they were statues at first. and awww, jazz, look how pretty the thunder is. how can you not love that?

anyway, i didn't pick religion because other people were or weren't. i learned about the different religions, and had the ability to make my own choice as i got older, but i decided this one suited my beliefs best, so I became catholic. That is what i am, and that is who i will always be. ^ ^

[Jazzratt]

agreed, pompeii was very sad :< I went there as a kid and thinking they were statues at first.

Yes, it is a very moving place but that doesn't, not to put too fine a point on it, answer my question.


and awww, jazz, look how pretty the thunder is.

Yes, it's an awesome force of nature and looks amazing, but...


how can you not love that?

because it is what is called a "dirty thunderstorm" where a thunderstorm occurs in the cloud of ash thrown up by a violently erupting volcano. I think they look awe inspiring and are one of the greatest things one can see in nature but because I have a tiny sliver of empathy I can imagine it would absolutely suck to bit its path and if I could move others out of its way I would. This, I think, illustrates that I (and I will be the first to admit to not being the nicest chap) love humanity more than your god ever would.


anyway, i didn't pick religion because other people were or weren't. i learned about the different religions, and had the ability to make my own choice as i got older, but i decided this one suited my beliefs best, so I became catholic.

Fascinating. I wasn't attacking you personally for choosing to be a religious leftist simply because it was different but because you were encouraging that in others. It is a completely bizarre attitude to take that "breaking the mould" for its own sake is good. Perhaps I should adopt a pagan religion simply so I can be cool and different like you guys :rolleyes:


That is what i am, and that is who i will always be. ^ ^

Then what's the point in arguing the toss when it comes to god? At least I would be willing to consider not being an atheist if new evidence or arguments come to light, but judging from the theists' past performances* in this matter I wouldn't lay any money on it (and I can be a betting man).

[AtteroDominatus]

i wans't trying to encourage it, i was just defending my own views or explaining what i believe. if people start going off on your God is etc etc i'm going to try and defend my position.

also, i don't know the reason it happens, obviously. don't know why if God created the world why he would make things like this happens. I won't use my 'cop out' of i'm not God. but i really have no earthly idea.

[Brother No. 1]

Is he doing this or is this just natural. We may never know.

[casper]

if its natural, hes doing it.

[Jazzratt]

if its natural, hes doing it.

Or god isn't real and it's just events and reactions within an uncaring universe. I like this option, it is more cheerful.

[ZeroNowhere]

I've never seen the concept of hell as being at all compatible with the idea of a loving god. Of course, I'm a naturalist, and thus don't believe in either a god or free will. Still, if the xian god is proven to be real, that would make me a misotheist.

[casper]

Or god isn't real and it's just events and reactions within an uncaring universe. I like this option, it is more cheerful.
definatly more cheerful

[Black Dagger]

Moved to religion subforum.

[ibn Bruce]

Characterisations of a loving God I find are often misleading. A just God is more accurate. The only reason that hardship in this world could be contradictory to the belief in a Just God is if there is nothing 'afterwards'. If one believes that everyone who does an atom of good will feel it, and one who does an atom of bad will feel it, there is no contradiction.

The blessing is in the struggle, misquoting here but 'without contraries there is no progression'. All people whom, faced with the oppression of this realm of deception, suffer and strive, will have those things evened out. Similarly, those who do not, those who are oppressors and live cushy lives without righteous action, will have justice done to them, for Allah loves not the Oppressor.

Belief must be holistic, it cannot be that you pick out a single aspect of religious belief and critique it outside of a broader context.