jobeenfitz wrote: » Maybe god had a mental breakdown? If I was responsible for the human race I might feck off to another universe n pretend it wasn't me. So mental breakdown or just had enough of yee Cu***.
Peatys wrote: » Childhood cancer is all i need to know about your god
smacl wrote: » You'd think an omnipotent deity might've just said 'shush!' in that case rather than resorting to genocide. Not so much a vengeful God as a grumpy all powerful psychopath. And the Christians are afraid of the Devil, makes you wonder whether they've backed the right horse there?
smacl wrote: » And the Christians are afraid of the Devil, makes you wonder whether they've backed the right horse there?
Santino Ancient Disk wrote: » What makes you think we're afraid of a created being?
smacl wrote: » A rather large part of the horror genre serving a Christian audience seems to rely on devils, demons and such like as the scary bad guy. Then you've got more vocal Christian types telling all and sundry that they're going to burn in he'll, which I gather is the devils domain. Are you suggesting that Christians by are indifferent to the devil?
smacl wrote: » Santino Ancient Disk wrote: » What makes you think we're afraid of a created being? A rather large part of the horror genre serving a Christian audience seems to rely on devils, demons and such like as the scary bad guy. Then you've got more vocal Christian types telling all and sundry that they're going to burn in he'll, which I gather is the devils domain. Are you suggesting that Christians by are indifferent to the devil?
Nobelium wrote: » Didn't have down as one of them Satanist dudes. Makes about as much sense as getting working up about one Leprechaun being better than another.
wiggle16 wrote: » The Devil gave man free will, and receives all of God's fallen children with open arms. Two concepts that the various churches and most religions find distasteful, leaving little doubt as to why people are taught that the Devil is bad and to be feared and despised I don't believe in anything myself, but I have no problem with the idea of an impersonal prime-mover. The idea that the universe was created by an intelligence which is not concerned by human affairs is no more or less likely than any other explanation and if there were evidence for that, then fine, I could be a deist. It doesn't answer anything though, it just becomes yet another contingency to explain, and so it's not useful as a supposition. The idea of a theistic God is a terrifying idea, as is the concept that a God who designed a world with so much needless, limitless suffering should be thanked and worshipped and praised, cares about you, and intervenes in your life. In spite of the total absence of evidence, the logical contradictions and the intellectual somersaults needed in order to contrive him, people still believe in a personal God. Not only that, but a foolish one, a God susceptible to prayer. So I don't think the question should be how do you convince people God exists, but instead how is it that people take so little convincing?
kneemos wrote: » Quite a bit if not most of the suffering is caused or inflicted by ourselves. If you want freewill and experience the full range of emotions you're going to have suffering.
kneemos wrote: » Quite a bit if not most of the suffering is caused or inflicted by ourselves.
If you want freewill and experience the full range of emotions you're going to have suffering.
wiggle16 wrote: » I didn't conflate free will with suffering. I have my free will and I suffer like everyone else. But I don't suffer because I have free will. Not seeing the relationship between the two things, even in terms of theodicy.
Here we go wrote: » Not super religious but you don't your not supposed to it's an act of faith [...]
Santino Ancient Disk wrote: » Never suggested that at all. But then much of what claims to be Christianity isnt even close to the real thing.
igCorcaigh wrote: » I don't see free will falling into that line of argument either, but it does come into discussion though. Weren't the Christians very divided about this? Calvin etc.
smacl wrote: » God, Satan, Thor, Kali. One mythology is as believable as the next, which for me is not at all. That said, never had a school teacher tell my kids that Thor or Kali exist and are due respect. To converse with someone who in all honesty claims belief in a deity, you need to take their belief at face value if not the belief itself. You can't engage without that. It is also worth remembering that very many people hold such beliefs. They also act on those beliefs, often to the detriment of those that do not share the beliefs. Saying it is all a load of bull is fine and dandy but there invariably comes a time where you have to explain why it is bull, notably when they're using their beliefs to excuse the inexcusable. At that point, you need to be able engage. I honestly don't care what anyone believes until such time they tell me what to believe, at which point I'll give them my honest appraisal of what I think of their belief system.
wiggle16 wrote: » Still are. You kind of have to be preoccupied with this, the problem of evil, if you want to think about God in any serious way. What's fascinating is how many hairs can be split over the one idea or issue. On the one hand, you have the various solutions to the problem of evil, which try to show how the fact that there is evil in the world is still consistent with the existence of God. On the other hand, you have theodicy, which tries to show how the fact that there is evil in the world makes the existence of a GOD plausible or even more likely. Commonly Calvin is misconstrued as not believing that people have free will - he did, but he differenciated two kinds of free will. One which was base, which was the free will all people are born with, and Calvin believed that under this form of free will, people will always in variably choose to sin. The other was a kind of enlightened free will where people would have the freedom "to live as they ought". Neither of these actually sounds like free will at all and so I wonder if Calvin had failed to define his terms. Calvin did believe in predestination, which is also misunderstood as denying free will. It doesn't, but the fact that it was necessary for intolerant pedants like Calvin to invent convoluted pseudo-solutions to problems with christian doctrine, such as predestination, also makes one wonder why people want to be convinced of the existence of a theistic God in the first place.
Nobelium wrote: » Nah man, I ain't going down the route wasting my life and time discussing and becoming obsessed with Leprechauns and those who believe in them. You just become the other side of the same coin. I'm more interested in what i'm doing rather that what others are doing, and if you think it's only Leprechauns, that's just the medium, they'll find some other ism from communism to socialism to capitalism to adopt and oppress others with using whatever current political correctness of the time and place is most advantageous. Twas always so, and will forever be.
wiggle16 wrote: » Quite a bit, yep. So what about the suffering caused by natural disasters, disease, famines, accidents, the suffering endured by anyone who loses a child, the suffering we experience as people we love get old and sick and die, and the suffering wrought by aging and dying itself? What do we do with the stuff God is responsible for? I didn't conflate free will with suffering. I have my free will and I suffer like everyone else. But I don't suffer because I have free will. Not seeing the relationship between the two things, even in terms of theodicy.
kneemos wrote: » People suffer because freewill exists.
wiggle16 wrote: » Can you elaborate as to how and why?
igCorcaigh wrote: » Yeah, I actually don't believe in belief. It's the only belief I have. I can consider things, value things, feel very passionate about things, but I don't believe in anything. I have a problem with the word itself. It's a language problem perhaps. But it's just not a word I use in my vocabulary.
Nobelium wrote: » I know what you mean, but there is room for belief for some things, depending on what it is, it's not always a dirty word. If no evidence either way is available, e.g. no evidence to date has been found of actual alien life, yet some people, including NASA believe alien life is probable and worth searching for.
pauldla wrote: » Quite an assertion. In order to support this, one would need to explain what is meant by free will, demonstrate that it exists, and then show the connection between freewill and suffering (and to the exclusion of other sources of suffering, at that).
More than half of all deaths in low-income countries in 2016 were caused by the so-called “Group I” conditions, which include communicable diseases, maternal causes, conditions arising during pregnancy and childbirth, and nutritional deficiencies. By contrast, less than 7% of deaths in high-income countries were due to such causes. Lower respiratory infections were among the leading causes of death across all income groups.
Deleted User wrote: » Ah, but, so much of the whole atheist world view is based on a moral philosophy that is Christian really.. like, really, what is to say that killing someone is wrong, really?..many other cultures didn't view it as such..
Deleted User wrote: » So much of most people's belief in science is based on blind faith too though..
Deleted User wrote: » But like, even with the more out there chaotic mathematics for instance.. there's a beauty to it that would suggest a divine creator behind it..
Deleted User wrote: » Shur Moses saw him in the burning bush that time..
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/43d5d8eb6f74f970975eb821385072d4.svg)
