Originally posted by twhiteheadactually i did had respect for you. you may think that religious people think less of atheist. but i don't. as i dont think less of muslims budhists or rastafarians that practice bong whorship. it is by the actions of one i judge.
Thats nonsense and you know it.
[b]the problem isn't that god cannot stop(i never said that). the problem is that God either starts performing miracles for everyone for ever and reduces us to parasites or he will stop at one time and then the people not helped would feel abandoned and wronged.
So all those earthquake victims died in order to spare ...[text shortened]... u believe in God not because of any evidence but because it gives you warm fuzzy feelings.[/b]
in our previous arguments about the existance of god i didn't agree but at leas i could respect ones skepticism in believing something that one could do without.
but now you wish for something you can do without( the problem solving dude). the most incredible thing about humans is how we bend the world around us to our needs, that in the face of hardships we endure and persevere, that we have rendered God obsolete. and your wish seeks to take that away from us. this i cannot respect
Twhitehead - The whole God's intervention is all or nothing argument doesn't sit well with me either, and I am a Theist. After all, God has a lot of compassion for his creation and many times even in my own life he seems to have intervened in a situation.
Of course, when I sit in my car after being very, very near having a crash and thanking God for protecting me, that situation would simply be argued by some people that that was exactly how things happened anyway, God didn't do a thing. It's impossible to prove either argument really, as there's no way to establish what would have happened if God hadn't intervened (if he did), and there's no way to prove that what happened was free from intevention.
Similarly, how do we know that God isn't already intervening in many, many situations all over the world? The earthquake in China or the floods in Myanmar are horrible, yes, but how do we know God didn't intervene and caused some people to move out of the area that got hit before hand? How do we know whether he intervened and made it so only Myanmar got hit rather than the entirety of South Asia, or whether the flooding was only ever going to hit Myanmar and he allowed it to happen in full?
Do you see what I'm getting at? If there is an intervention scale, where God sit on it? Does he intervene countless times every day all over the world, saving millions of lives? Or does he not intervene at all, simply letting the world run it's course?
Originally posted by ZahlanziMy skepticism has nothing to do with need. I can do without pluto but am not skeptical about its existence.
i could respect ones skepticism in believing something that one could do without.
the most incredible thing about humans is how we bend the world around us to our needs, that in the face of hardships we endure and persevere, that we have rendered God obsolete.
You are clearly one of the lucky ones. Where I come from (Zambia), infant mortality is very high and life expectancy is about 30. God is hardly obsolete - he just doesn't exist. Yes, all dead people needed God and since God doesn't exist, they are dead.
and your wish seeks to take that away from us. this i cannot respect
Yes, I am compasionate and would wish that my friends that died young could have had a longer life and wish the same for myself. Choose not to respect it if you will. I personally have no respect for someone who wont admit when he is making a ridiculous argument (and knows it).
Additionally, the whole concept of being free to do whatever we so please on Earth with someone to solve every problem for us being something he wouldn't take, as argued by Zahlanzi, doesn't sit well with me either. After all, isn't that what heaven is supposed to be like? Essentially carefree? I know it says we'll be working even in Heaven, but the concept behind that is that we are most satisfied with Self Actualisation, in completely fulfilling every element of what we were created to be.
Get what I'm saying? I just think you need to clarify what you mean when you say you wouldn't accept someone completely solving all your problems, as that's essentially what dying and going to heaven would be doing, going to a place where all problems are instantly solved.
Originally posted by JonoKyleyes, i have a problem with the heaven where you dress in white, nothing to do but smile and be happy, an eternity of happiness at doing not much of anything. i guess this view needs work. maybe by being admitted into heaven we change our state of mind so i would finally be able to let go and enjoy eternity. maybe it simply means we would live on a planet Earth without the hunger, disease and death but we would still have to work for knowledge or wealth(wealth in heaven seems kind of silly but...). maybe...
Additionally, the whole concept of being free to do whatever we so please on Earth with someone to solve every problem for us being something he wouldn't take, as argued by Zahlanzi, doesn't sit well with me either. After all, isn't that what heaven is supposed to be like? Essentially carefree? I know it says we'll be working even in Heaven, but the concept going to heaven would be doing, going to a place where all problems are instantly solved.
EDIT: Maybe we get personalized heavens. if people want odin's heaven where you get to bash peoples heads in maybe god would be willing to provide it. maybe heaven is a theme park with different attractions for everyone./EDIT
the fact is we don't have much choice on what is prepared for us there. but we do have a choice on what happens here. we could fall down and say "this game of life is too damn hard, make it easier." or we could do something about it.
if this life would be exactly like heaven, what would have been the point of it? if all is given to us, we would have nothing to be proud of when we move on. i can find no meaning in an existence where i must do nothing, work for nothing. when or if i go to heaven, i would be faced with a new challenge: finding means to give meaning to eternity(maybe god will have some useful pointers there).
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm a Christian, and I wouldn't. Many Protestent denominations see God in a different way--some subtle, some not so much. Or maybe I'm in a church of liberal Christians.
I hope you realize that almost any other person claiming to be Christian would disown your from their religion.
Originally posted by ZahlanziGod not only fails to pick us up when we fall, he fails to take away razor blades when we play with them. God is the biggest mass murderer in history. The Bible tells so - so I must be right.
if your parents see you fall on your ass and get a bruise but don't help you get up does it mean they are indifferent? removing all pain and all challenges around an organism means that organism is denied progress, and it will either never evolve or it will die if the condition change slightly
Originally posted by twhiteheadSaying "needed" is unnessary in many Christians' views, being they there is a belief in an afterlife (heaven, and for some, hell), and those people continue to "need" God.
You are clearly one of the lucky ones. Where I come from (Zambia), infant mortality is very high and life expectancy is about 30. God is hardly obsolete - he just doesn't exist. Yes, all dead people needed God and since God doesn't exist, they are dead.
Also, saying "since God doesn't exist, they are dead", doesn't hold much water against a Christian view where God doesn't prevent death, but in fact brings people to a better place in an afterlife.
Originally posted by JonoKyleLet's take it even further. If there is a heaven, and people will live there without suffering, and this does not violate free will, then why didn't God just start us out there?
Additionally, the whole concept of being free to do whatever we so please on Earth with someone to solve every problem for us being something he wouldn't take, as argued by Zahlanzi, doesn't sit well with me either. After all, isn't that what heaven is supposed to be like? Essentially carefree? I know it says we'll be working even in Heaven, but the concept ...[text shortened]... going to heaven would be doing, going to a place where all problems are instantly solved.
Even if heaven only reduces suffering somewhat - again, why put your created human species through a period of increased suffering first? Why let some of them miss out on heaven entirely?
Originally posted by SwissGambitI wonder this often times myself. Let's go with the assumption that heaven is perfect, the place of absolute fulfillment, free from suffering entirely. From the possible arguments I've seen so far on this board, and one of my own:
Let's take it even further. If there is a heaven, and people will live there without suffering, and this does not violate free will, then why didn't God just start us out there?
Even if heaven only reduces suffering somewhat - again, why put your created human species through a period of increased suffering first? Why let some of them miss out on heaven entirely?
a) this would mean heaven encroached on our free will, as we didn't have complete freedom
b) we still have freedom of will there, yet he decided we should endure a lifetime on Earth first
c) Earth was originally intended to be another heaven (a place of perfection and free from death and suffering) but we spoiled it and have to live in it 'til we die
d) Putting us straight into heaven would've encroached on our free will due to not having to make any choice, but by first putting us on Earth, God allows us to choose whether or not we want to spend eternity with him.
At the moment I'm not sure which one of those I'm more inclined towards, though I disagree with a) and b). Maybe both c) and d) IMO. They don't, however, answer the question of why God made humans that wouldn't choose him - is it really better to give them ~80 years of free will and an eternity in hell than to take away their free will and give them an eternity in heaven?
Originally posted by checkbaiterhttp://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=Topics
All of the questions in this thread are answered here....
http://www.truthortradition.com/
I read through the Ethics and Logic essay in the Logic and Reason category and couldn't help but notice that it contains quite a bit of uneducated nonsense. Is this an exception, or are the other essays similar in this regard?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPlease be a little more specific on your conclusions....
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=Topics
I read through the Ethics and Logic essay in the Logic and Reason category and couldn't help but notice that it contains quite a bit of uneducated nonsense. Is this an exception, or are the other essays similar in this regard?