Jesus should've come by now?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-12-2014, 12:16 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(12-12-2014 11:33 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 10:47 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I hear you on the first point. I've also heard the theory of relativity described as a wonderful thing that few people can understand. Something little understood can be wonderful if esoteric.

No, apparently you missed (or ignored) my first point. By the way, my eternal destiny in bliss or torture doesn't depend on the theory of relativity.

(12-12-2014 10:47 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But your claim that few people can understand the Bible isn't so--after all, every atheist on this forum claims to understand it--and then judges it--in hundreds of different doctrinal claims and areas!

Strawman. Atheists understand a lot about it, there's a difference. We understand why it's fiction. We understand that it's full of contradictions, atrocities, impossibilities, lies, and things that don't add up. Parts of it can be understood. Other parts don't make any sense and no one claims that they do. The fact that there are countless translations is strong evidence that few, if any, understand it. Now one could argue that there is a "correct" translation and the ones doing that translation actually understand it. But since no translation is without its contradictions and nonsensical portions, I would disagree.

(12-12-2014 10:47 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Great question re: what's the point of the people if one doesn't understand or even have it. It's a guidebook for Christians, not atheists, to live their lives. Clearly, you all express that concept here, and often. My point remains--your conscience informs you of your need for God without a Bible, and has before men had scrolls and papyri, too.

Totally missed my point. How can it be a guidebook even for Christians if no one can understand or agree upon what "god" is telling us to do?

(12-12-2014 10:47 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I find it ironic that you mention a forest and trees while ignoring my point that a hurricane has everything to do with the cleansing of flora! I'm not trying to make you silly, just making an observation here. Your point about "human suffering" reinforces the point I just made, that atheists are anthropocentric always when it comes to things that cause HUMAN suffering. Why does your imaginary god have to avoid human suffering when cleansing fauna and flora with a storm?

No problem, it's only you that you are making look silly by continuing to ignore what I said. Fine, hurricanes cleanse the flora. And so what? Why must your god continue to cause mass deaths and suffering in order to cleanse the flora when he could simply will it and no harm would be done to anything or anyone? Are you going to answer this time or are you going to avoid the question yet again? Consider

There is no answer for your question that will satisfy you, since you have pre-decided what "harm" is and what good and bad are. Apparently you have not only gone with the New Atheists to agree that there are objective morals, but gone way beyond them and their logical argumentation to conclude that objectively speaking ALL suffering and "harm" - whatever that means - is "wrong".

If we truly are on a level playing field, perhaps you will explain how it can be good that people SURVIVE hurricanes before asking me to develop an apologetic against the "wrongness" of people DYING in hurricanes.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2014, 12:17 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(12-12-2014 11:39 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 10:42 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Not so. I've seen atheists in my searches on this forum saying to the effect of if there is a God, he causes unneeded suffering and specifically mentioning acts of weather and nature.

The keyword there being IF. Many atheists are perfectly capable of assuming the existence of a god for the sake or argument and then following that through to examine the consequences. IF there is a god then the evidence shows that he causes unneeded suffering either by causing or not preventing acts of weather.

Quote:No. I was responding to you--because atheists seem to think about a hypothetical god as the causation of unneeded suffering far more often than theists.

We are just responding to the theistic claims that god exists and showing that IF theists are right then their god is a dick. The evidence all seems to show that they aren't right and we are just dealing with random chance and the way the universe works. (And if you think theists don't talk constantly about god's purpose in using hurricanes and other natural events then you aren't paying attention.)

Quote:Ah, but now you are limiting the purposes of storms and weather to a narrow and still anthropocentric, viewpoint. It's too violent for YOUR taste has nothing to do with 1,000 other purposes the same storm could accomplish overall.

That doesn't address my point: if your god can only accomplish his goals through means that include large scale acts of destruction then that seems pretty pathetic.

Quote:I'm not God but I can myself see 100 million homeowners with heightened coverage

So a benefit is that 100 million homeowners were scared by an act of god into buying insurance in order to protect themselves from future acts of god? Have you ever heard of something called a "protection racket"?

Quote: against 10 people who were told to evacuate or stay inside but didn't... again, the difference here is you have GOD responsible for 10 people who told PEOPLE - and GOD - they planned to NOT evacuate the area... etc. I don't know those ten people personally but can make an educated guess.

I've read that several times and have absolutely no idea what you mean.

I didn't say scared into buying insurance. I said that Andrew pointed out errors in coverage--insurers went bankrupt because they had too many policy holders in tight geographic areas--errors that were corrected by legislation and practice. But I didn't have to say that, I could have said "how do you know hurricanes are bad and not good from a non-anthropocentric perspective?"

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2014, 12:30 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(12-12-2014 12:16 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Apparently you have not only gone with the New Atheists to agree that there are objective morals, but gone way beyond them and their logical argumentation to conclude that objectively speaking ALL suffering and "harm" - whatever that means - is "wrong".

If we truly are on a level playing field, perhaps you will explain how it can be good that people SURVIVE hurricanes before asking me to develop an apologetic against the "wrongness" of people DYING in hurricanes.

You're shifting the burden of proof, you have to prove a hurricane is guided by a god.

Please define what constitutes "harm" and how it is "good".

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2014, 12:32 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(12-12-2014 12:16 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There is no answer for your question that will satisfy you, since you have pre-decided what "harm" is and what good and bad are.

Try me. Or give me one that satisfies you, but justify it. Drinking Beverage

(12-12-2014 11:50 AM)Nurse Wrote:  Apparently you have not only gone with the New Atheists to agree that there are objective morals, but gone way beyond them and their logical argumentation to conclude that objectively speaking ALL suffering and "harm" - whatever that means - is "wrong".

Strawman.

(12-12-2014 11:50 AM)Nurse Wrote:  If we truly are on a level playing field, perhaps you will explain how it can be good that people SURVIVE hurricanes before asking me to develop an apologetic against the "wrongness" of people DYING in hurricanes.

Ok, where's the hidden camera? That's what this is, right? You're filming to see how I will react to such a ridiculous question. That's gotta be it. Facepalm

Are you seriously saying you think surviving a hurricane ISN'T good? Blink

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
12-12-2014, 12:34 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(12-12-2014 12:32 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 12:16 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There is no answer for your question that will satisfy you, since you have pre-decided what "harm" is and what good and bad are.

Try me. Or give me one that satisfies you, but justify it. Drinking Beverage

(12-12-2014 11:50 AM)Nurse Wrote:  Apparently you have not only gone with the New Atheists to agree that there are objective morals, but gone way beyond them and their logical argumentation to conclude that objectively speaking ALL suffering and "harm" - whatever that means - is "wrong".

Strawman.

(12-12-2014 11:50 AM)Nurse Wrote:  If we truly are on a level playing field, perhaps you will explain how it can be good that people SURVIVE hurricanes before asking me to develop an apologetic against the "wrongness" of people DYING in hurricanes.

Ok, where's the hidden camera? That's what this is, right? You're filming to see how I will react to such a ridiculous question. That's gotta be it. Facepalm

Are you seriously saying you think surviving a hurricane ISN'T good? Blink

Perhaps he's about to enlighten us on god's mysterious ways.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
12-12-2014, 03:10 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(12-12-2014 12:34 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 12:32 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Try me. Or give me one that satisfies you, but justify it. Drinking Beverage


Strawman.


Ok, where's the hidden camera? That's what this is, right? You're filming to see how I will react to such a ridiculous question. That's gotta be it. Facepalm

Are you seriously saying you think surviving a hurricane ISN'T good? Blink

Perhaps he's about to enlighten us on god's mysterious ways.

If he does, it will just be more made up shit on top of all the other made up shit. Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2014, 12:05 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
Huh?

Would it satisfy you then, if I said neither Christians nor atheists can prove a hurricane is good or bad? If so, then you also can neither praise nor condemn God for them...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2014, 12:45 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(12-12-2014 12:16 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 11:33 AM)Impulse Wrote:  No, apparently you missed (or ignored) my first point. By the way, my eternal destiny in bliss or torture doesn't depend on the theory of relativity.


Strawman. Atheists understand a lot about it, there's a difference. We understand why it's fiction. We understand that it's full of contradictions, atrocities, impossibilities, lies, and things that don't add up. Parts of it can be understood. Other parts don't make any sense and no one claims that they do. The fact that there are countless translations is strong evidence that few, if any, understand it. Now one could argue that there is a "correct" translation and the ones doing that translation actually understand it. But since no translation is without its contradictions and nonsensical portions, I would disagree.


Totally missed my point. How can it be a guidebook even for Christians if no one can understand or agree upon what "god" is telling us to do?


No problem, it's only you that you are making look silly by continuing to ignore what I said. Fine, hurricanes cleanse the flora. And so what? Why must your god continue to cause mass deaths and suffering in order to cleanse the flora when he could simply will it and no harm would be done to anything or anyone? Are you going to answer this time or are you going to avoid the question yet again? Consider

There is no answer for your question that will satisfy you, since you have pre-decided what "harm" is and what good and bad are. Apparently you have not only gone with the New Atheists to agree that there are objective morals, but gone way beyond them and their logical argumentation to conclude that objectively speaking ALL suffering and "harm" - whatever that means - is "wrong".

If we truly are on a level playing field, perhaps you will explain how it can be good that people SURVIVE hurricanes before asking me to develop an apologetic against the "wrongness" of people DYING in hurricanes.

You are SO drunk on the Kool-ade. Why does your fucking god, who *said* one could ask anything in his name and it would be given them, send ANY fucking hurricane in the first place, when SO many of you holy rollers tried to pray it away ?

I see you have an excuse for absolutely anything. The DEATH of ONE innocent child, supposedly protected by your omnipotent deity is not "measured" against other children. No one is arguing that good and evil "ballance out".

Do try a bit harder when you're not so drunk on your cult.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2014, 02:32 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
Christians have a terribly difficult problem to contend with when they want to think their god is the "omni" — all-good, -powerful and -knowing. With the contortions they are forced to perform, the spiritual chiropractic bills must be enormous.

The most rational approach to an "omni" deity is utter submission, in the hopes of avoiding its capricious, vindictive, torturous wrath. An omni god can change the rules on a whim, set up absurd games like Adam/Eve>the Fall>Noah>the Flood>Jesus>redemption — the insane formulation at the root of Christianity, in which God is basically just screwing with everything it has created, though why isn't clear — and lay down fossils and putting clever words in Matt Dillahunty's mouth to "trick" people attempting to use the brain he instilled in the first place. "Good" is completely subjective to this entity — could be setting kittens on fire tomorrow, since its absolute might makes absolute right.

In other words, you don't want to suffer its eternal torment, tap dance as hard and fast as you fucking can. There is no other logical approach.

God does not work in mysterious ways — he works in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.
Jesus had a pretty rough weekend for your sins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2014, 02:39 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(15-12-2014 12:05 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Huh?

Would it satisfy you then, if I said neither Christians nor atheists can prove a hurricane is good or bad? If so, then you also can neither praise nor condemn God for them...

No. We're not talking about hurricanes. We're talking about hurricanes vs. alternatives. With an omnipotent god, the alternatives are infinite. And surely, any good coming out of hurricanes could be accomplished by such a god another way while eliminating all the bad. Yet, if such a god exists, that is not the choice that has been made by that god since people die, are seriously injured, or are permanently disabled in hurricanes all the time. For many who live, their hard-worked and hard-earned property is destroyed or theirs lives are otherwise completely turned upside down. Not to mention all the animals that die or are injured too.

And frankly, this is very VERY obvious. It was pointed out previously and you continue to skirt the issue. The only reason you aren't agreeing is because you'd rather keep making excuses for your god. The least you could do is admit it. Dodgy

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: