*Ahem* slight rant

TeddyTedson wrote: »

But some people say the likes of the USA (stay with me on this, I'm not trying to say the USA is a God:pac:) should not interfere in a country like Libya and let the civilization there overcome the regime.
If there is a super natural perhaps it's similar thinking.

It's also the same on the nature channels where humans try not to interfere with wildlife as it could upset the habitat.

But this assumes some sort of detachment.
However we are also told that God loves us.

Think of someone you love, is there any way that you would allow this person to suffer in anyway if it was in your power to end or even stop the suffering before it begins?
And what about if you could end/prevent the suffering with as much effort as a word? (And as a continuation of this, what if you could totally end a strangers suffering with a word?)
And then what would you be if you refused to do that?

And since the answer to these is clear, there's no way anyone could accept that God is both loving and all-powerful at the same time. And if he's not all powerful or all loving, why call him God?

Further more, if you condemned someone you supposedly love to torture simply for not declaring their love for you enough (even though you never attempt to communicate with them) for even a few days, it's clear that you would be extremely ****ing evil.
God apparently not only does this, but does this to millions of people and for eternity.

As for the US and documentary makers, they don't interfere partially because they are not all knowing or all powerful and any action they could take could have adverse consequences, both known and unknown. This is not so with God.

But there are a few cases where people set stuff up, then allow events to play out without interference to see the results.
We call these experiments.
And do you really think that something that "loves" us would treat us like that?

But as has been mentioned this is only one of the myriad of reasons why I don't believe in God.

The arguement is usually used as a refutation of a kind and loving God, not a God/s in general.

MagicMarker wrote: »

You forgot the full stop.

I sometimes like to use a smiley as a full stop

I never did like the emotional reasons for rejecting the notion of a god. Things along the lines of "God was not there for me" or "God killed my dog" give fuel to eejits who want to say atheists are just angry at God.

Sure enough the amount of pain and suffering present is pretty indicative that any god that exists doesn't really care that much about your feelings. If there were such a supernatural entity I could still imagine it would see it as mostly inconsequential in the grand scale, especially with eternal life. It makes a lot more sense to reject the notion because it's unfounded and unmotivated.

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Meanwhile, back on topic!

Just to clarify my position. I don't believe in god myself. But who knows. The whole thing is too hard to even fathom. I sort of feel that having an opinion is the matter is a waste of time. All we can do is guess.
I realise I've really contradicted myself in this post but that's just how I roll :P

I wouldn't say there's anything negative about having an opinion on the subject. It's when you base that opinion on emotion and value it over others, that's when it becomes an issue. In which case, I'd suggest that someone not believing in a god purely because they feel neglected/offended/ashamed by it wouldn't be able to offer a valid argument on the subject.

In saying that, a major upheaval of a person's belief systems can easily be expected to stem from some emotional crisis. I'd think its generally with challenging experiences or personal reflection that a person might question their beliefs. The thing is then to follow up on that questioning through logic and education.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's an interesting way to look at it, although the obvious counter argument is sometimes humans do interfere with wildlife with positive results (wildlife reserves and the like).

Personally I wouldn't think wildlife reserves qualify as a positive interference. Though that says more about people's relationship to wildlife. In that it's generally considered good to not kill things. Surely that's just.....decent. I would struggle to think of a situation where humans have a "positive" interference with wildlife. I think at our best we might manage to undo a minor fraction of the harm we cause. For example, creating wildlife reserves so we don't drive a few more species into extinction. But that's a far cry from postive results. Just a lessening of the negative results. (end of mini rant!)

TeddyTedson wrote: »

What pisses me off about some Atheists is that they seem to come to the conclusion of there being no god or super natural due to the fact that horrible things are allowed to happen in the world without any divine intervention.

To me it seems like a rebellion towards organised religion more than an individuals conclusion.

Anyone else agree?

Excuse the crass nature of my post.

Have to agree with ye Teddy, the people that believe this just dont understand God

I dont understand God really either but it's not God that does all the evil - it's man/woman, science/nature and greed that allows all the bad things happen.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

x100000000 for an omnipotent being then? Pity your god must have chosen the latter.

Rain for africa or kill billions? Create a stable world or one where tsunamis and earthquakes kill millions...hmmm....toughy....it's almost like...there isn't a god at all... :eek: :pac:

Well not really a 'toughy'. Over population is a real problem, if they didnt die then we'd all die and as Bono says "thank god its them instead of us", and billions dont die because of no rain either. I hope this has been educational for you.

MagicMarker wrote: »

What's population got to do with natural god made disasters?

It's similar to the Lotka–Volterra equation, basic predator - prey equation of when there's plenty of prey there's plenty of predators.

Human beings are on the top of the food chain so we have no predators so things like disease and man made disasters are introduced to stop our population spiraling out of control.