Well i recently was talking to a christian, she is dead set in her beliefs and she believes the bible and in god and jesus and such, i then said to her.

"So, what would you say if i said i believed unicorns and pixies and dragons were real"

And she then said she would proably laugh and say they are only fairy tails....now.....i dont believe in these things but how can christians or ANYONE with a religious belief say pixies and unicorns are stupid but say jesus and god are real.

They put all their faith onto one book written about them, so, over the thousands of years there have been many many MANY books written about vampires and pixies and dragons, why couldnt i say those are real.

This to me seems like a bit of a double standard, its ok to believe one book abotu a so called god, but if you bring up other myths or fairytails theyre automatically wrong.

Because their belief is obviously right and yours is obviously wrong, duh. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Yep, there is a double standard. I've talked to christians who made fun of Wiccans doing ceremonies calling it all hocus Pocus, who then went to church to participate in the ceremony of eating bread and drinking wine to celebrate a guy who performed magic (er sorry, miracles).

Many don't even seem to grasp the hypothetical idea the bible could be just a tale or that it even sounds fairy taleish.

It's because the bible isn't real. You're asking the question every "non-believer" wants to know.

quote:Originally posted by Apoxyus:

It's because the bible isn't real. You're asking the question every "non-believer" wants to know.



Heh...I liked the 'lie' part, never seen that before...reminds me (for some odd reason) of how Douglas Adams meaning of life is 42, which turned upside down spells 2b, or 'to be.' Probably unintentional, but still interesting.

Anyway, allow me to point out that if belief in fairies and pixies was heavily indoctrinated into some people from birth the belief would be completely rational. I'm sure most would see the ludicracy in it eventually, but maybe not all of them- Look at how well christianity is doing.

I think it's just as reasonable to believe in pixies and dragons etc... as it is to believe in Jesus Christ.

The philosophy however behind fairy tales doesn't in it's fullness or even in it's essence necessitate the belief in real physical, material fairyland creatures in order to acheive that purpose from which the tale was written... Those stories written about Jesus Christ on the other hand claim that it is absolutely essential to believe in his actual physical existence and that he actually accomplished those supernatural things which the stories bare record of. The Students of Yeshua who wrote the stories claimed often that they were eyewitnesses to these events and that their word was trustworthy and true.

The writers of the christian stories even go so far as to vehemently denounce those who teach the christian stories absent of the doctrine of the actual physical death and resurection or physical existence of Christ.

while it may be a double starndard for a christian to laugh at the thought of real pixies it probably makes a little more sense logically than laughing at the thought of a real Christ, only considering how much the authors stressed the importance of believing in his physical existence (even defending their claim to the point of torture and death). If there were more people who sacrificed their lives to talk about pixies I would take pixies alot more seriously too. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Well, I'd say there's a little more evidence of Jesus than there is of pixies... However, call me crazy: I totally believe in unicorns, dragons, and pixies.

*shrug*

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

Well, I'd say there's a little more evidence of Jesus than there is of pixies... However, call me crazy: I totally believe in unicorns, dragons, and pixies.

*shrug*

Cheers,

Lost

One book isnt proof.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

One book isnt proof.

No, it's not...but Jesus is in a shitload of books, and there are several documents that have been recovered that mention a couple of his non-supernatural works. Both him and his brutha James are recorded figures in history. As real as Rameses.

Dragons are real. Komodos anyone?

I’m an atheist, but I’ve come to the conclusion that all myths and fairy tales and religions are in some way based on a truth but a truth that has been elaborated severely.

There are many, many evidences of Jesus' existance besides the Bible. Archeology proves the Bible to be accurate again and again.

Yes, there was a man named Jesus. Doesn't mean he really was the son of God and could perform magick.

Jesus in the bible is a fictional character based on a real man.

There isn't that much evidence that Jesus existed (a lot of it is second hand from christians).

One thing people seem to confuse is proof of a person or object compared to proof of supernatural claims. Yep archaeology has proven some events and places in the bible are true (and some are false) but to think that proves the bible is like saying London exists thus Harry Potter is a real boy wizard.

what is proof anyway?

Double the alcohol percentage.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

There isn't that much evidence that Jesus existed (a lot of it is second hand from christians).

One thing people seem to confuse is proof of a person or object compared to proof of supernatural claims. Yep archaeology has proven some events and places in the bible are true (and some are false) but to think that proves the bible is like saying London exists thus Harry Potter is a real boy wizard.

What things in the Bible have been proven false by Archeology?

There are the basics such as a literal Adam and Eve and a literal flood.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

What things in the Bible have been proven false by Archeology?

Maybe not archeology, but your shit has been ruined by, amongst other things, the fact that it's been proven that the earth is much older than 10,000 years. So fuck you.

Come on Dre Crabbe, insult them by proving them wrong, don't just say fuck you, that just tears the argument down to a flame war. Nobody wants that. And as far as I'm concerned, the bible is just a very interesting fantasy book.

Good grief, isn't there another thread somewhere about archeology and the validity of the Bible?

There seems to be a lot of hubub over whether or not the Bible is reliable but not nearly as much over whether pixies and dragons exist... Why is this, do you feel threatened by what's written in the bible?

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:



There seems to be a lot of hubub over whether or not the Bible is reliable but not nearly as much over whether pixies and dragons exist... Why is this, do you feel threatened by what's written in the bible?

Because in society, it is perfectly fine to believe something so immoral and ludicrous as the Christian god and his doctrine, but not perfectly fine to believe in delusions such as pixies and dragons. That is why such a "hubub" exists.

You're right, there shouldn't be a "hubub". We, everyone of us, should hold all those ridiculous beliefs with the same standard - that they are unsubstantiated, unreasonable and many times immoral (as is the case with Christianity), unless proven otherwise.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-29-2006).]

Not to mention there is a large group who feel all of society should follow the rules set by their magical being.

If someone were to run for office on the Jedi platform he would be laughed out of politics, but a whole party is loosly based around a magical-man and harassing sky being father platform and everyone finds that acceptable.

I Never said there shouldn't be hubub, I was only wondering why there was (from your perspective). In reality I think there should be a great deal of uproar against Christianity, even greater than there is, because the doctrine of Christ is completely contrary to the doctrine of this world... Yes many people in this world have adopted the doctrine of Christ as there creed (including political leaders, but very few of them actually do what Christ told his followers to do.

By what standard or rule are you judging what is and is not moral?

quote:Originally posted by Hematemesis:

Come on Dre Crabbe, insult them by proving them wrong, don't just say fuck you, that just tears the argument down to a flame war. Nobody wants that. And as far as I'm concerned, the bible is just a very interesting fantasy book.

I still used a valid arguement, though.

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:



By what standard or rule are you judging what is and is not moral?

By pretty much all of them.

The worship, and praise of a being who allows people to suffer unspeakable amounts of pain and torture, without any sort of need for them to suffer such, is immoral on pretty much any code of ethics. Pick one.

what makes you so sure that the suffering of man is needless? would we know pleasure without having known pain, or light without having seen darkness?

Easy. His omnipotence.

His omnipotence allows me to claim, without any shred of doubt, that there is absolutely nothing he "need" do. I can claim, with all the confidence in the world, that he has the power to make sure we know pleasure without having to know pain; that he has the power to make sure we know light, without seeing darkness.

There is no need for us to suffer because he need not do anything; he must have the power, by his very definition, to choose another alternative - one which does not entail our suffering. So again: he, without a doubt, needlessly allows us to suffer.

That's the extent of the vacuity of Christianity: It is so unreasonable, it is self-refuting.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-29-2006).]

Its funny how people of all religions laugh at scientology YET they forget that their religion was started that way, probably one man or afew men writing a story about a guy its just odler and as its been passed down for so long it is more widely accepted.

yes God is omnipotent and has the power to allow us to experience pleasure without knowing pain etc... There we are in perfect agreement.

I, however believe that this was how man was created, in a perfect state not knowing pain or death. It was the power behind death which is the power of darkness which introduced pain and death to man, offering an attractive bait that man took and was captured by darkness and therefore under the rule of darkness, no longer subject to God.

So then if God is all powerfull why hasn't he obliterated darkness and all of its power, in order to end all pain and suffering? The answer is that he has. But we being creatures subject to time can only see things in a linear way and don't realize that death and pain are already done away with. Kind of like we can still see a star far off as being whole even though in reality the star has already diffused.

So why then are we made subject to time? Because inorder for something to project, or expand forth (much in the way that we are a projected "image of God") it creates a line and an order from the original to the image. This line, creates the illusion of time and causes us to think in a linear way. This illusion belongs to the power of darkness. If we were not under the power of darkness we would not be subject to time.

Another question you may ask is why did God create man before destroying darkness? If God is light and man is his projected image, then it was through man that he destroyed the darkness much like the projected rays from a lightbulb are the agent by which darkness is eliminated from a room.

Well doesn't God have the power to fill a room with light and cast out the darkness without projecting forth an image of himself? Yes, afterall God is all powerfull and if he chose to could do something without actually doing it. But lets not foget that God is also the author of order, logic and reason. Why would God contradict himself and do something while simultaneously not doing it. For God to do this would make him a God of chaos, but it is chaos (which is darkness) that God has set out to eliminate because it is not good, nor reasonable nor logical nor orderly. the very nature of light is uniform and orderly. If you criticize the God of the Bible you must adhere to all of the Bibles descriptions of God.. He is not only omnipotent but also all good, and he is not the author of confusion. the author of confusion is darkness which God set out to eliminate.

Well couldn't God have just kept to himself and not projected his image of light to cast out the darkness? Yes, but if that's what you desire then you are in league with the power of darkness and better try as best you can to fighht God and the power of light. Perhaps you've realized this and this is why you're fighting against God... Or perhaps you want to understand the light and do what is good but you are deceived by darkness into thinking that darkness is light and light is darkness. Perhaps you believe it is I who has been deceived. Darkness speaks to the intellect while God speaks to the heart... From the overflow of the love in your heart should the intellect be fed and nourished. If it is the discoveries of the intellect that are motivating your heart I can assure you that you are under the influence of darkness... Don't be to hasty to believe that things are as they appear, the illusion of darkness is very strong, judge what is right by the heart through the law of love which is self sacrifice.

You have answered absolutely nothing. You have given a long-winded reply that manages to ignore the whole initial point and ultimately gives not even a glimpse of a justification for why he needlessly allows suffering to continue (be it real or as an illusion).

1. If he created us in this state, then he needlessly did so.

2. If he chose to use man to do away with darkness, then he needlessly did so.

3. If he chose to make man in such a manner that it experiences things "linearly", then he heedlessly did so.

4. If he created man before destroying darkness, then he needlessly did so.

5. If he chose to not "contradict" himself in doing away with darkness, then he needlessly did so. He has the power to do away with darkness without "contradicting himself"

6. If he chose to "project his image of light to cast out the darkness" then he, yet again, needlessly did so. He could have chosen from an infinite list of other choices.

Ultimately, behind all the clutter of your post, the fact remains that he has the power to do anything, according to you, and because of that power you cannot give any justification for why suffering exists, because he must be able to overcome that justification of yours, by the very definition of what he is. That he hasn't means that he still deliberately allows for us to suffer when there is absolutely no need.

You failed to answer anything.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-29-2006).]

Yes, Jesus probably existed, at least an individual that the character of Jesus can be traced back to...

I personally don't believe Jesus was the son of God, etc etc. Then again who says it's as simple as that? Maybe Jesus did have healing powers, maybe we all do, maybe the eternal cosmos of energy is a part of the universe...

Or maybe reality and beliefs are just ignorant manifestations of the human mind. WHo knows? I don't believe human's can ever know the "answers" to life, because answers and logical and "right and wrong" are just aspects of the human mind, and are essentially irrelevant outside it in my oppinion. Then again no human can think outside the human mind...

People have double standards because they are indoctrinated by other human beings. Christins do not accept Christianity to be illogical because it is the logic and system that nurtures their mind, and very often has been with them for most of their life...

Why do you want to doubt yourself when you're "right", you've got the "evidence" to show it and God's on your side!!

It's easy not to see the answer if you ignore it. The answer is beyond words and beyond comprehension, the intellect of a man can only see glimpses of it and paint pictures of it but no effort of man can fully and accurately represent it. The answer was hidden in my response, if you had followed the clues you would have found it.

You've chosen to cast away all of my words not being willing to search them dilligently for the pearl of truth. I've attempted using inellect to reach your heart because you are too blind in darkness to hear the truth blatently as I would wish to speak it.

The blatent truth is this, "who are you to question God?"

In your mind this is a copout and is the the very pinnacle of ignorance and stupidity. But I assure you this is a truthful answer. The rage swells in your heart, against me and against everything I stand for because I stand for Christ, whom the world hates because he is light, and those in darkness hate him. If you are willing, Love and be of love and be motivated by love and walk in light.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

What things in the Bible have been proven false by Archeology?

Not necessarily archeology, but things other than science disprove it. Like the Roman census at Jesus' birth being complete BS. Historians like Tacitus make no mention of it, and it's completely unreasonable for the Romans to do such a thing, in such a huge empire.

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

It's easy not to see the answer if you ignore it. The answer is beyond words and beyond comprehension, the intellect of a man can only see glimpses of it and paint pictures of it but no effort of man can fully and accurately represent it. The answer was hidden in my response, if you had followed the clues you would have found it.

You've chosen to cast away all of my words not being willing to search them dilligently for the pearl of truth. I've attempted using inellect to reach your heart because you are too blind in darkness to hear the truth blatently as I would wish to speak it.

The blatent truth is this, "who are you to question God?"

In your mind this is a copout and is the the very pinnacle of ignorance and stupidity. But I assure you this is a truthful answer. The rage swells in your heart, against me and against everything I stand for because I stand for Christ, whom the world hates because he is light, and those in darkness hate him. If you are willing, Love and be of love and be motivated by love and walk in light.

1. For me to ignore something, that something must exist in the first place. Your magical "answer" doesn't exist, because you answered nothing. If you did answer something, then by all means show me.

You failed to explain why suffering exists when there is no need for it to exist. That is a fact. No evasion, no circular logic, and no plain ignorance on your part is going to change that.

2. I didn't ignore a thing. I dealt with all your points. Your points, on the other hand, ignored the fact that he need not do the things you claim he did, and therefore the fact remains that suffering needlessly exists.

Either provide a justification for why suffering exists when there is no need for it to exist, or kindly stop posting. If you feel that you have already provided one, quote where exactly and I'll show you how it isn't a justification.

But you're right on one thing: I dislike everything you stand for. I dislike people who praise a being so disgusting and immoral as the Christian god.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-29-2006).]

I'm sure my answer won't satisfy you so I suppose I will honor your request and stop writing to you about the subject.

Just out of curiosity though, who is your God?

Your answer would satisfy me if it actually answerd something. Excuses which do not ultimately justify why suffering exists when there is no need for it to do so, are not answers.

As for your question, I am an atheist.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

It's easy not to see the answer if you ignore it. The answer is beyond words and beyond comprehension, the intellect of a man can only see glimpses of it and paint pictures of it but no effort of man can fully and accurately represent it. The answer was hidden in my response, if you had followed the clues you would have found it.

You've chosen to cast away all of my words not being willing to search them dilligently for the pearl of truth. I've attempted using inellect to reach your heart because you are too blind in darkness to hear the truth blatently as I would wish to speak it.

The blatent truth is this, "who are you to question God?"

In your mind this is a copout and is the the very pinnacle of ignorance and stupidity. But I assure you this is a truthful answer. The rage swells in your heart, against me and against everything I stand for because I stand for Christ, whom the world hates because he is light, and those in darkness hate him. If you are willing, Love and be of love and be motivated by love and walk in light.



Ah, the glamour of christianity. You and Christ against the world- the world that is in darkness because they don't see the light. Yep, evil people those atheists are. Following what they believe to be right, instead of what ancient books claim- evil bastards.

I know you like to think that we don't believe because we are in darkness, and that we don't want to see the light, and that we reject love and so on, but that's just not true. At all. If you need me to explain the extent of the not-trueness, I can. You are more in darkness for ignoring the actual light of truth, for what you are told is the truth.

there is much more love in trying to help someone out of darkness than there is in sarcastic mockery.

Examine you true intentions before being so confident that you are correct.

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

It's easy not to see the answer if you ignore it. The answer is beyond words and beyond comprehension, the intellect of a man can only see glimpses of it and paint pictures of it but no effort of man can fully and accurately represent it. The answer was hidden in my response, if you had followed the clues you would have found it.



So you say the answer is beyond comprehension, yet you and all other christians alike think you KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT what the answer is. Just as other religious poeple think THEY know. Every religious person I've EVER came into contact with (which is quite a few here in the "bible belt") thinks that THEIR WAY is the ONLY way, period. Even in the same church, members have radically different beliefs, yet they are all the right way to believe.

The arrogance and immorality in christianity alone makes it easy to see how "fake" it really is (or at least one would think... those who believe, who is truly in the dark? [fuck you if you say anyone who doesn't believe the way you do]).

[This message has been edited by Megrim (edited 03-30-2006).]

The vast majority of professing Christians do not know Christ nor the truth, they are fakes, and make the entire belief seem fake. If chritianity must be fake because it claims one thing to be right and everything else to be wrong then you should likewise believe that mathematics is fake also... There are alot of arrogant assertions in mathematics, such as 1+1=2. What if I really think it should equal four? I suppose I would be mighty offended.

As I said the truth is beyond the intellect, but the true Christian is not an intellectual, he is a spiritual entity, There are spiritual laws or equations just as there are physical and mathematical ones. Christ demonstrated the most profound spiritual law there is... If someone doesn't recognize that, then they are not very well educated in spiritual mathematics and should go under a tutor.

Even if something cannot be fully grasped intellectually it can be fully grasped spiritually.

That's just pure bullshit you're feeding again. You are, to me, just another of the "vast majority of professing christians."

Why are your beliefs correct? Because you think you know "christ"? You think that YOU know the truth? Of course you know the truth. Explain this "truth" to me, but wait, based on your previous posts, no one except a spiritual entity will ever know such, which is a pure cop-out: anyone who doesn't confrom to what you think the truth is is a fake or not a spritual entity.

Another thing, there are MANY reasons why I denounce christianity; the disagreement between sects is merely a soft point I was trying to make in this particular thread.

Now you are bringing mathematics into this already asinine argument. Math is logic, but when you talk spirits you are talking about metaphysical entities and other non-falsifiable claims.

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

If someone doesn't recognize that, then they are not very well educated in spiritual mathematics and should go under a tutor.



If anyone is in need of a tutor here, it is you, who failed miserably at justifying the existence of suffering.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If anyone is in need of a tutor here, it is you, who failed miserably at justifying the existence of suffering.

I'd have to agree, thanks for the laugh Joshua19. Thought you were 12 while reading that.

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

...true Christian is not an intellectual...

You should of just started off by saying that...

The only spiritual law christ taught me was that the christian God, like a vampire, requires blood to be happy. So much so that he had to create a perfect half God son (not Hercules) to take this blood from. So for all of God's omnipotence (should I say impotence) there is apparently a higher law that forces him to take blood. Thus Christ taught me that the christian God is not the real God.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

The only spiritual law christ taught me was that the christian God, like a vampire, requires blood to be happy. So much so that he had to create a perfect half God son (not Hercules) to take this blood from. So for all of God's omnipotence (should I say impotence) there is apparently a higher law that forces him to take blood. Thus Christ taught me that the christian God is not the real God.

That doctrine wasn't introduced until around the year 1100. The original understanding of the atonment was not that God required blood but that christ was a ransom to the power of darkness to buy back humanity...

perhaps hat sounnds just as silly to you, but at least it doen't make God a vampire.

quote:Originally posted by Aseren:

I'd have to agree, thanks for the laugh Joshua19. Thought you were 12 while reading that.

Thank you for the encouragment...

scriptures teach that unless one becomes like a little child they will not enter the kingdom of God.

I hope to be more like 6 or 7 but 12 means I'm getting closer! thanks

Rust, there are justifications that work in my mind as to why suffering exists, and it was these I was trying to share. It seems like you may have isolated each of my idividual points and then bashed them individually as not explaining the whole thing all at once. If you connect the different thoughts it may make a little more sense. I didn't mean that my post was magical but that if you read it a certain way, connecting the points it leads to a greater idea that I myself cannot fully comprehend.

I really don't think that that justifying suffering is all that important anyway... With the amount of argumnet everyone has over it it becomes clear it's something we just don't understand. Most of the ways we justify it comes from a personal bias anyway, be it for or against God. I know my opinion in the matter is biased toward the Christian God, so my answer (nor yours do I believe) can be purely objective. If I'm wrong and you have a purely objective and complete answer please do share.



I think the more important issue is how we deal with suffering, not whether or not we know all about why it exists. Afterall our senses experience billions of sensations everyday that we don't fully understand but we have to deal with them regardless.

If we respond to suffering well, by taking it patiently and not inflicting suffering on others I think we do well. While I don't understand "the Father" whom Jesus spoke of entirely, I understand the behavior Jesus portrayed, that in the most vile of sufferings he didn't lift his heel against his tormentors, but extended love for them and prayed that God would forgive them.

[This message has been edited by Joshua19 (edited 03-30-2006).]

1. Your points don't work, period. Neither individually, nor as a group. They don't work because they don't answer anything; they do not justify anything! They are simply your long-winded ramblings, and about the only thing they do is sooth your erratic mind; they prevent you from realizing the truth: that the religion you believe in is illogical, unreasonable, and immoral.

2. Suffering is important because its existence refutes the possibility of an omnipotent and benevolent god. It's very existence, which you have failed time and time again to justify, allows us to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that omnipotence and benevolence preclude themselves.

You, of course, do not want to dwell on this fact, because you would never admit to it, even if the evidence were staring you right in the face - as it is now.

You're the perfect personification of the double standard being spoke of in the original post: You are allowed to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence; something which refutes the countless evidence we do have about the world; and something which is illogical at its very core.

Now, again, either justify the existence of suffering, or admit that you cannot and stop posting on the matter.

check your heart, check your intentions

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

Thank you for the encouragment...

scriptures teach that unless one becomes like a little child they will not enter the kingdom of God.

I hope to be more like 6 or 7 but 12 means I'm getting closer! thanks



Become a child, when it comes to features as purity and innocence.

They don't literally mean you have to act and reason like a 12 year old does.

That response of yours is so incredibly stupid I don't know what to say.

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

check your heart, check your intentions

I already have. Both my heart and my brain tell me that worshiping/praising a being that needlessly allows for suffering to exist is immoral.

yes it is childlike purity and innocence which Christ esteems... But don't forget the third and most important aspect which is childlike faith. I don't find myself to be reasoning like a child, only trusting like one...

do you embody true morality?

[This message has been edited by Joshua19 (edited 03-30-2006).]

Are you evading the issue?

no, I'm getting right down to the issue. you condemn my God as immoral, what gives you the basis for doing that if you were not yourself a perfect judge and practitioner of true morality?

Yes, like the foolish kid that you are.

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

no, I'm getting right down to the issue. you condemn my God as immoral, what gives you the basis for doing that if you were not yourself a perfect judge and practitioner of true morality?

I don't have to be a perfect practioner of morality in order to give an argument showing how Christianity is immoral.

Much like I don't have to be a mathematician to be correct in a mathematical equation I give, nor a scientist to be correct in a scientific hypothesis I give, I don't have to be perfectly moral to give an argument on morality.

This is a desperate strawman on your part. Either answer what was asked so long ago, or kindly stop posting.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-30-2006).]

in math and science, you can give a right answer without actually understanding the laws of math and science. Your answer can be nothing but a regurgitation of memorized formulas. So yes, you could give a correct answer concerning morality even if you don't fully understand the laws. but the fact that it is possible for you to answer rightly in no way gives any more credibility to the answer you give, it doesn't make your answer any more likely to be right. If however you were a perfect judge and practitioner of morality it would give great creibility to your answer. Wouldn't you trust a great scientists opinion about a scientific matter over that of a layman?

In like manner I trust the words of people who live and practice morality over those who merely speculate as an outsider.

There is a thing which people call suffering but we all have different opinions of what it is. If someone considers all things to be joy then for that person there is no suffering, so that makes suffering something which we create for ourselves. If you have created suffering for yourself then you have every reason to not believe in God because if God is all powerful and good he would have prevented you from creating suffering. Therefore for you there is no God outside of yourself, you control yourself and that's the end of it. You have chosen to create suffering and since there is no God for you I would hope that you hold yourself accountable for that.

For me Suffering does not exist, because I have created all things to be joy. If there is a God outside of me, it is because of God that all things for me are joy. Therefore I believe in a God outside of me and have every reason to, because to me God has been all powerful and good.

Just because other people have created suffering for themselves doesn't mean that there is a such thing as suffering.

If, infact, there is no such thing as suffering then your argument is automatically void. Prove to me the existence of suffering and then I'll justify it.

[This message has been edited by Joshua19 (edited 03-30-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

in math and science, you can give a right answer without actually understanding the laws of math and science. Your answer can be nothing but a regurgitation of memorized formulas. So yes, you could give a correct answer concerning morality even if you don't fully understand the laws. but the fact that it is possible for you to answer rightly in no way gives any more credibility to the answer you give, it doesn't make your answer any more likely to be right. If however you were a perfect judge and practitioner of morality it would give great creibility to your answer. Wouldn't you trust a great scientists opinion about a scientific matter over that of a layman?

In like manner I trust the words of people who live and practice morality over those who merely speculate as an outsider.

There is a thing which people call suffering but we all have different opinions of what it is. If someone considers all things to be joy then for that person there is no suffering, so that makes suffering something which we create for ourselves. If you have created suffering for yourself then you have every reason to not believe in God because if God is all powerful and good he would have prevented you from creating suffering. Therefore for you there is no God outside of yourself, you control yourself and that's the end of it. You have chosen to create suffering and since there is no God for you I would hope that you hold yourself accountable for that.

For me Suffering does not exist, because I have created all things to be joy. If there is a God outside of me, it is because of God that all things for me are joy. Therefore I believe in a God outside of me and have every reason to, because to me God has been all powerful and good.

Just because other people have created suffering for themselves doesn't mean that there is a such thing as suffering.

If, infact, there is no such thing as suffering then your argument is automatically void. Prove to me the existence of suffering and then I'll justify it.



Would you hace any qualms about me kidnapping your family and pouring sulphuric acid in their eyes? after all, they won't suffer...

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

no, I'm getting right down to the issue. you condemn my God as immoral, what gives you the basis for doing that if you were not yourself a perfect judge and practitioner of true morality?

Is comitting genocide immoral, how can you say so if you aren't a perfect practitioner of morality?

Arguments about the morality of a person don't become invalid if the other person is also immoral. You have used the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy, learn about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right_%28fallacy%29 and stop using it

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

but the fact that it is possible for you to answer rightly in no way gives any more credibility to the answer you give, it doesn't make your answer any more likely to be right.



That's irrelevant, as I already gave a logical argument for it being correct. If you disagree, and believe that what I said is not a valid logical conclusion, then it is up to you to prove that my logic is faulty; that is, it is up to you to justify the existence of suffering. You have not.

quote:

If however you were a perfect judge and practitioner of morality it would give great creibility to your answer. Wouldn't you trust a great scientists opinion about a scientific matter over that of a layman?

Since I'm not asking you to take my argument at face value, but to arrive at its conclusion based on the logical arguments that I gave, your point is completely moot.

I gave an argument based on logic. One that uses basic rules of logic. If you disagree with the conclusion that I have arrived at using those rules of logic, then it is up to you to show how the conclusion is an erroneous one. Since my conclusion is that suffering would not be justified, it would be up to you to prove that it is. You have failed to do so.

quote:

Just because other people have created suffering for themselves doesn't mean that there is a such thing as suffering.

If, infact, there is no such thing as suffering then your argument is automatically void. Prove to me the existence of suffering and then I'll justify it.

This is pathetic example of grasping at straws. You cannot even begin to answer the problem at hand, so you desperately try to do away with the problem by using some of the worse verbal gymnastics I have ever seen in my life. What's more sad is that you fail miserably, yet again:

If people created their own suffering (something which you didn't even come close to proving) that would change nothing; god would still have the power to prevent people from creating their own suffering, and therefore, the existence of suffering (created by us or not created by us) is still needless. This, even if we ignore the fact that god made it possibly for me to "create my own suffering" in the first place which, again, makes its existence needless.

Once more: either prove that the existence of suffering is needed, or admit that you cannot and stop posting.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-31-2006).]

Hi rust, how's it hanging?

God allows suffering to satisfy you... It's become apparent you would be miserable without it.

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

God allows suffering to satisfy you... It's become apparent you would be miserable without it.

He has the power to disallow suffering, while at the same time to satisfy me. He also allowed for me to "create" the suffering, in the first place. Suffering is still needless.

You're not going to be able to justify suffering, because there is no justification. You can give any explanation you want, and I can still say "He has the to make your justification possible without suffering.".



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Hi rust, how's it hanging?

Pretty nicely. How about you?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

He has the power to disallow suffering, while at the same time to satisfy me. He also allowed for me to "create" the suffering, in the first place. Suffering is still needless.

You're not going to be able to justify suffering, because there is no justification. You can give any explanation you want, and I can still say "He has the to make your justification possible without suffering.".





that's a very good point.

Perhaps that explains my reluctence to justify the existence of suffering. I don't think that suffering is justified I think it is condemned. I think it is condemnable and worthy to be sentenced to nonexistence.

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

that's a very good point.

Perhaps that explains my reluctence to justify the existence of suffering. I don't think that suffering is justified I think it is condemned. I think it is condemnable and worthy to be sentenced to nonexistence.





Interesting. Apparently your God disagrees.

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

that's a very good point.

Perhaps that explains my reluctence to justify the existence of suffering. I don't think that suffering is justified I think it is condemned. I think it is condemnable and worthy to be sentenced to nonexistence.



Great! Then to worship and praise a being that created the possibility of suffering in the first place, and deliberatly allows it to continue, is immoral and disgusting.

Who's up for some cognitive dissonance?

It seems at this point that Joshua19 is just making crap up.

Joshua, you seem to be making up these rules and such as you go on with your futile argument.

Who are you to say that YOUR beleif in a god is the correct one... that if anything is immoral.

[This message has been edited by Nidias_91 (edited 04-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Nidias_91:

Who are you to say that YOUR beleif in a god is the correct one...



Fool. Because he just KNOWS it is true http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Great! Then to worship and praise a being that created the possibility of suffering in the first place, and deliberatly allows it to continue, is immoral and disgusting.



God didn't create the possibility of suffering, that possibility is eternal and was from the begining. Niether does He allow it, he condemns and banishes it.

quote:Originally posted by Nidias_91:

It seems at this point that Joshua19 is just making crap up.

Joshua, you seem to be making up these rules and such as you go on with your futile argument.

Who are you to say that YOUR beleif in a god is the correct one... that if anything is immoral.



Yes, I am making all of this up as I go along with my futile argument. It's quite fun and I'm learning something new with each post.

My belief in a god is no more correct than anyone elses, it just happens to lead to eternal life. I want others to live forever too, what's so immoral about that?

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

God didn't create the possibility of suffering, that possibility is eternal and was from the begining. Niether does He allow it, he condemns and banishes it.

Nice try but, you fail yet again.

God is omnipotent according to you, and thus the very existence of suffering means that he does allow suffering to exist, as he has the power to make suffering impossible (even if he allegedly didn't create the possibility of suffering - something which causes a myriad of other theological problems and questions).

So you're wrong yet again. If he's omnipotent then he does in fact allow suffering to exist.

Ooo, Rust is even more vicious over here than he is in Humanities. I like it.

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

[...]scriptures teach that unless one becomes like a little child they will not enter the kingdom of God.

Didn't you get the memo? Everyone goes to heaven if God is all-loving. If God is not all-loving, or willing to inflict an eternity of torture on a person based on choices they made in less than century, then he is vicious entity not worth worshiping.

As for solving Rust's argument, the easy way out is to abandon the omnipotent claim. "Infinite" power is really a contradiction in terms anyway, so it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that while God may have "unimaginable" power, that power fails to overcome some sort of natural tendency for suffering. It seems unlikely that evolution could function without suffering, for example.

If one abandons the all-loving claim, however, it really defeats the purpose of having a deity in the first place. After all, a being whom demands worship at the threat of eternal torture sounds more like a demon than a savior.

quote:Originally posted by Red Raven:



As for solving Rust's argument, the easy way out is to abandon the omnipotent claim. "Infinite" power is really a contradiction in terms anyway, so it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that while God may have "unimaginable" power, that power fails to overcome some sort of natural tendency for suffering.

I like that idea that infinite power being in itself a contradiction of terms. Since no human can grasp the infinite how could we grasp infinite power if it does infact exist... All we can do is speculate... I think it may be more appropriate to use the word "unimaginalble" to describe Gods power, because no one can accurately imagine or define the infinite.

Also I know that everyone goes to heaven because God is all loving. But you do have to actually exist to exprience it. Does that sound like a fair prerequesite?



[This message has been edited by Joshua19 (edited 04-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



So you're wrong yet again. If he's omnipotent then he does in fact allow suffering to exist.

You keep using Gods omnipotence as a basis on which to prove or disprove something. Another example of this was in an earlier post...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You can give any explanation you want, and I can still say "He has the [power] to make your justification possible without suffering."

If you're going to use this type of argument you have to realize that the same exact thing can be used back at you to refute anything you say. For example...

If God were infact omnipotent he would have the power to make you convinced that he cannot be simultaneaously omnipotent and all loving when in reality he is. If he were omnipotent he could make you think that suffering is bad when infact it is good. He could make you think that suffering exists when it doesn't. He could make you think that he doesn't exist when he actually does... He could make you believe whole heartedly that everything you are saying in every post is logical and correct when in reality it is incorrect and illogical, he could make your entire concept of reality wrong and he could do that out of love as a good thing too.



[This message has been edited by Joshua19 (edited 04-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

If you're going to use this type of argument you have to realize that the same exact thing can be used back at you to refute anything you say. For example...

If God were infact omnipotent he would have the power to make you convinced that he cannot be simultaneaously omnipotent and all loving when in reality he is. If he were omnipotent he could make you think that suffering is bad when infact it is good. He could make you think that suffering exists when it doesn't. He could make you think that he doesn't exist when he actually does... He could make you believe whole heartedly that everything you are saying in every post is logical and correct when in reality it is incorrect and illogical, he could make your entire concept of reality wrong and he could do that out of love as a good thing too.

You make a good point. However, you also need to REALIZE the same can be used right back against you, and then me, and then you- and can go on infinitely. This doesn't solve the problem. So we can never, with 100% accuracy, determine who is wrong or right on this matter. But we do have basic rules of logic, physics, and definitions. Logically, the idea of omnipotence is self-refuting. Physically, omnipotence doesn't exist (give me one naturally-occuring instance of omnipotence that you can prove). The definition of omnipotence is: unlimited power- which, again, is self-refuting.

Here is an excerpt from an essay at ebonmusings, which sums up the argument.

"In brief, it (the problem of evil, i.e. suffering)seeks to establish that the existence of evil in the world is logically incompatible with the existence of a benevolent God, and that it is more reasonable to conclude that God does not exist than that he does exist but does nothing to stop evil. Below is a formal presentation of the argument from evil, phrased as a disproof by contradiction:

Assumption (1): God exists.

Assumption (1a): God is all-knowing.

Assumption (1b): God is all-powerful.

Assumption (1c): God is perfectly loving.

Assumption (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be God.

Premise (2): Evil exists.

Premise (3): An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil.

Premise (4): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil.

Premise (5): A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil.

Conclusion (6): Evil does not exist. (from (1),(3),(4),(5))

Contradiction: But evil does exist. (from (2))

Conclusion (7): There is no being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving. (from (2),(3),(4),(5))

Conclusion (8): God does not exist. (from (7),(1d))"



[This message has been edited by Megrim (edited 04-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

If you're going to use this type of argument you have to realize that the same exact thing can be used back at you to refute anything you say. For example...

If God were infact omnipotent he would have the power to make you convinced that he cannot be simultaneaously omnipotent and all loving when in reality he is. If he were omnipotent he could make you think that suffering is bad when infact it is good. He could make you think that suffering exists when it doesn't. He could make you think that he doesn't exist when he actually does... He could make you believe whole heartedly that everything you are saying in every post is logical and correct when in reality it is incorrect and illogical, he could make your entire concept of reality wrong and he could do that out of love as a good thing too.



Yes, he could. So? That proves absolutely nothing. If he is purposely making me believe suffering exists, and that it is bad, then the existence of suffering (be it an illusion purposely created by him) is still needless! That would apply to anything he does: If he purposely made my world outlook as "wrong" out of love and as a good thing, then he could have chosen not to make my "world" outlook wrong; that he chose to means he needlessly does so.

You have not refuted anything I've said. Suffering would still be needless, regardless of whether it is an illusion created by the omnipotent being or not.

You fail again, and these desperate attempts of yours are not supporting your argument at all; they are making it weaker. They actually end up refuting the bible in its totallity. The bible, according to Christians, gives a complete listing of what is "bad"; if what I see as bad (which coincides with what the bible says is bad) is actually good, then that means the bible does not detail what is bad (i.e. "sin").

You now fail doubly.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-02-2006).]

something you keep saying is that suffering is needless. But the only justification I've heard you use to prove that it is needless is that If God is all powerful he would be able make a world without suffering. Therefore suffering is needless.

Using that reasoning, joy is also needless and so is anything that we know or think we know or anything that exists, yes to it's core all of it is needless. In order for something to be needed there must exist something which is incomplete without it and if God by his nature is the very essence of wholeness and completeness (holiness) and God is all that is, the I AM THAT I AM, infinitely present in all existing space then yes there is absolutely nothing which is needed and all things are needless.

So sure, suffering is needless yet allowed by God... So is joy, so is happiness, so is the most wonderfull moment of your entire life, all of it is needless...

So then what is your point? God doesn't exist?

Would you base that assumption on the fact that God allows joy, even though joy is needless?

No?

So then why would you base your assumption on the fact that God allows suffering even though it is needless?

It seems like there may be a double standard here... Correct me if I'm wrong, if you are willing to make the argument that God doesn't exist based on the fact that he needlessly allows joy I would like to know.

I think the reason that you're making the argument from the suffering angle is because most people, including yourself, do not love suffering. And for that reason you get the idea that suffering must be contrary to love.

But if we're dealing with the physical world, natural laws and common sentiments (such as the dislike of suffering) we must take into account the common theme we observe that love sometimes does inflict suffering such as in the case of the discipline of a child. Love isn't contrary to suffering. Either that or the natural world cannot exist because it contradicts itself

Suffering is needless and so is love, so is joy, so is everything

Anything is possible, nothing is provable and everything is needless...

Where do we go from here?

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

something you keep saying is that suffering is needless. But the only justification I've heard you use to prove that it is needless is that If God is all powerful he would be able make a world without suffering. Therefore suffering is needless.

Using that reasoning, joy is also needless and so is anything that we know or think we know or anything that exists, yes to it's core all of it is needless. In order for something to be needed there must exist something which is incomplete without it and if God by his nature is the very essence of wholeness and completeness (holiness) and God is all that is, the I AM THAT I AM, infinitely present in all existing space then yes there is absolutely nothing which is needed and all things are needless.

So sure, suffering is needless yet allowed by God... So is joy, so is happiness, so is the most wonderfull moment of your entire life, all of it is needless...

So then what is your point? God doesn't exist?

Would you base that assumption on the fact that God allows joy, even though joy is needless?

No?

So then why would you base your assumption on the fact that God allows suffering even though it is needless?

It seems like there may be a double standard here... Correct me if I'm wrong, if you are willing to make the argument that God doesn't exist based on the fact that he needlessly allows joy I would like to know.

I think the reason that you're making the argument from the suffering angle is because most people, including yourself, do not love suffering. And for that reason you get the idea that suffering must be contrary to love.

But if we're dealing with the physical world, natural laws and common sentiments (such as the dislike of suffering) we must take into account the common theme we observe that love sometimes does inflict suffering such as in the case of the discipline of a child. Love isn't contrary to suffering. Either that or the natural world cannot exist because it contradicts itself

Suffering is needless and so is love, so is joy, so is everything

Anything is possible, nothing is provable and everything is needless...

Where do we go from here?



First off, only a complete psycho would willingly inflict harm on their children.

Secondly your analogy is shitty, we love in spite of pain, not because of it, Your analogy fails to take into account that all of god's whims can be fufilled without inflicting suffering, Not all of a human's can. Furthermore a parent who willingly and needlessly harms his or her child is not fit to raise children, and is completely unworthy of worship.

Any person with a trace of moral fiber will act to prevent needless suffering if time and resources allow. Your attempts to rationalise away needless suffering are character suicide. I hope your seed is wiped from the earth, you child-hating pervert.

[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 04-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:



Go to hell, you masochistic psychopath.



You have just made a judgment of me condemning me by your own authority to an eternity of pure unbridled suffering...

I may give my child a spanking someday for touching the stovetop (willingly inflicting harm on my child) in hopes that he learn by the warning not to inflict a greater harm upon himself in the future, but I wouldn't even consider comdemning someone to the eternal suffering of hell.

(especially not just for posting a disagreeable opinion on an internet message board)

I'm not sure what definition of masochistic psychopath you are using but I'd certainly apply the term to someone who desired for another person to suffer eternally, before applying it to someone who believes in disciplining their children.

[This message has been edited by Joshua19 (edited 04-03-2006).]

That's 'sadistic' fool. You lose.

Now, If a person is so mind boggingly negligent and unstable as to leave a stove turned on in full reach of children, then proceed to hit them if they touch it, Then he/she is a parent who is not fit to raise children.

Furthermore your analogy fails because as god is omnipotent he has the power to confer discipline without resorting to extremely crude tactics such as corporal punishment, which we don't even use against criminals.

Do you think this is acceptable if used on you?

If you say not on me but it's justified on a fucking four year old you are a hypocrite.

If you say it's justified even when used on me you are a masochist, gaining pleasure from suffering.

If you say it isn't justified then we're on a small step to realising that the existance of suffering is unjustified.

I'll rephrase my insult to greater reflect the truth.



[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 04-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:



So then what is your point? God doesn't exist?

Would you base that assumption on the fact that God allows joy, even though joy is needless?

No?

So then why would you base your assumption on the fact that God allows suffering even though it is needless?

It seems like there may be a double standard here... Correct me if I'm wrong, if you are willing to make the argument that God doesn't exist based on the fact that he needlessly allows joy I would like to know.



You've wasted all this fucking time making up ridiculous arguments in a pathetic attempt to keep up, and you don't even know how the argument started? Wow.

Please, follow what I have said or kindly stop posting all together. You've done nothing but waste my time it seems, because you have no fucking clue what I'm arguing, even though I've repeated it numerous times.

"We, everyone of us, should hold all those ridiculous beliefs with the same standard - that they are unsubstantiated, unreasonable and many times immoral (as is the case with Christianity), unless proven otherwise."

That's what I am arguing., If you admit that suffering is needless then the worship of a being that deliberately allows a needless form of evil to exist is disgusting and immoral.

quote:

I think the reason that you're making the argument from the suffering angle is because most people, including yourself, do not love suffering. And for that reason you get the idea that suffering must be contrary to love.

But if we're dealing with the physical world, natural laws and common sentiments (such as the dislike of suffering) we must take into account the common theme we observe that love sometimes does inflict suffering such as in the case of the discipline of a child. Love isn't contrary to suffering. Either that or the natural world cannot exist because it contradicts itself

Love is contrary to suffering, if the suffering is needless. We do not see the discipline of a child to be bad because we admit that the parent has no other resources available to teach that lesson, and that the lesson ultimately amounts to more good than the bad inherent in the discipline. You cannot make that argument at all if the god is omnipotent and omniscient. He could teach you that lesson without employing the use of suffering, because suffering is needless. If he is teaching a lesson by means of suffering then he deliberately and without need, chose to inflict suffering on you. That's not synonymous with love at all. Your analogy, as well as your argument, fails.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-03-2006).]

I'm sorry for wasting your time Rust.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You cannot make that argument at all if the god is omnipotent and omniscient. He could teach you that lesson without employing the use of suffering, because suffering is needless. If he is teaching a lesson by means of suffering then he deliberately and without need, chose to inflict suffering on you. That's not synonymous with love at all. Your analogy, as well as your argument, fails.



err...no. here you are assuming you know that god could bring about the same thing he wants without inflicting suffering. this is a conclusion you cannot reach, because you can not know the mind of god.

the obvious argument against what you are asserting is that suffering in this world seems to us to be evil, but from god's perspective it may be good.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

err...no. here you are assuming you know that god could bring about the same thing he wants without inflicting suffering. this is a conclusion you cannot reach, because you can not know the mind of god.



No, it's a necessary requirement of his omnipotence. If he is omnipotent then he must, by his very definition, be able to "bring about the same thing he wants without inflicting suffering". I can conclude that without a shadow of a doubt; it follows directly from his definition.

quote:

the obvious argument against what you are asserting is that suffering in this world seems to us to be evil, but from god's perspective it may be good.

1. Sin exists, which is an "evil" or "bad" that the bible itself describes. Is the bible incorrect?

2. If it's good in reality, then there is no need for it to seem evil in out perspective. He would be deliberatly allowing it to seem evil, and doing so needlessly.

When are you fucks gonna stop trying to argue with Rust. It is obvious that he supersedes any of you christian's intellect. Just give it up, YOU ARE WRONG. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



quote:

No, it's a necessary requirement of his omnipotence. If he is omnipotent then he must, by his very definition, be able to "bring about the same thing he wants without inflicting suffering". I can conclude that without a shadow of a doubt; it follows directly from his definition.



ok i may have been a little unclear here, but i know you are quite familar with philosophy and i think you know what i was getting at.

is it not possible that some suffering is actually good, either now or in the long run? simplistic example: without suffering, how would you know not to touch a hot stove? of course, you say he could find a way around that, if he is all powerful. well, apparently you solved the 'if god is all-powerful, can he create a rock that even he can't lift' question. im not trying to throw up a red herring here, but i think the two questions are nicely intertwined. here you seem to be arguing that god could break the rules of logic if he wanted to (at least if you accept the premise that some suffering is needed. at the very least you have to accept the possibility.) but i have read you use the rock paradox to refute gods existence.

enough sophism! i want to read some honest thinking, not just pointless rhetoric.



quote:[b]

1. Sin exists, which is an "evil" or "bad" that the bible itself describes. Is the bible incorrect?

2. If it's good in reality, then there is no need for it to seem evil in out perspective. He would be deliberatly allowing it to seem evil, and doing so needlessly.

B]

1. I don't give two shits about the bible or sin.

2. How can you say there is no need for us to suffer, unless you too are omniscient?

edit: you also nicely ignored one of my main points, which was that you cannot comprehend the mind of god. to do so is a bad analogy because you are comparing your mind to gods. please don't neglect this in your next post, as i thought it was quite interesting.





[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 04-04-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

ok i may have been a little unclear here, but i know you are quite familar with philosophy and i think you know what i was getting at.

is it not possible that some suffering is actually good, either now or in the long run? simplistic example: without suffering, how would you know not to touch a hot stove? of course, you say he could find a way around that, if he is all powerful. well, apparently you solved the 'if god is all-powerful, can he create a rock that even he can't lift' question. im not trying to throw up a red herring here, but i think the two questions are nicely intertwined. here you seem to be arguing that god could break the rules of logic if he wanted to (at least if you accept the premise that some suffering is needed. at the very least you have to accept the possibility.) but i have read you use the rock paradox to refute gods existence.



I have not used the "rock paradox" to refute his existence; you're completely mistaken. In fact, I have said various times that the paradox is resolved by he being able to do the illogical.

So I can most certainly conclude that suffering is needless if he is omnipotent. My point still stands.

quote:1. I don't give two shits about the bible or sin.

2. How can you say there is no need for us to suffer, unless you too are omniscient?

1. Great, but Christians do. The person who I was replying to, before you decided to speak to me, was a Christian. I'm merely explaining why I would be correct in what I said to him.

I wasn't arguing with you, hence I'm not here to justify what I said to your particular beliefs.

2. I don't have to be omniscient because, again, that is a logical necessity of his definition. He cannot need suffering in order to do anything, because he is omnipotent. This follows directly from the definition.

quote:

edit: you also nicely ignored one of my main points, which was that you cannot comprehend the mind of god. to do so is a bad analogy because you are comparing your mind to gods. please don't neglect this in your next post, as i thought it was quite interesting.

I didn't neglect anything, so don't accuse me of doing so. I already dealt with that point. You specifically said:

"here you are assuming you know that god could bring about the same thing he wants without inflicting suffering. this is a conclusion you cannot reach, because you can not know the mind of god."

I already replied to that. You were mistaken, I can reach that conclusion, because that it follows - out of pure necessity - from the definition of omnipotence. I don't need to "know his mind" in order to claim that. I can claim that without a shadow of a doubt because it is a logical necessity.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-04-2006).]

sorry about that rock thing, i guess i was thinking of somebody else.

right, god causes what we percieve as suffering. but to assume that from gods standpoint that it is evil is to anthropomorphise god. that i think is the fundamental error in your logic. many prominent philsophers also agree with me on the problem of suffering.

i am not arguing for or against the existence of god. i suggesting that the existence or non-existence of god is something that can be known only through faith, not logic.

Since I was specifically replying to a Christian, then only Christian theology or that which refutes Christian theology, is relevant. Other philosophies or philosophers would be unimportant to either my arguement or his. My point, the one I was making by replying to him, stands completely. Replying to it in a non-Christian context would be unfair because it relies on the Christian context Joshua19 was giving it in the first place.

---

Now, if you're still asking in a general sense, then the fact would still remain that our view of suffering as "evil" or reprehensible would be needless as well.

Suffering is needless. Our perception of suffering as evil is needless. Allowing real suffering - or allowing us to percieve suffering as real - is still morally reprehensible by virtually any code of ethics. The point still stands.

right, when your looking at the christian god it doesn't really make any sense at all.

on the other hand, many people look back on hard times and see that they have learned greatly from the experience. without that experience, they would not be who they are today and many would do it all over again if they had the choice.

They could have learned without the need of that experience, if the god so wanted. The suffering is still needless.

would you really want it that way though? i wonder if i would or not. life may loose part of it's meaning.

Of course I would, since his omnipotence guarantees the possibility of me being able to enjoy equally or even infinitely more of the god so wishes!

hmm...i've been thinking about this over the past couple of days, and it occured to me that god is not only all-powerful, but also all-knowing and all-loving.

since he is all-loving and all-powerful, he will use his all-knowing to decide the best way to implement his perfect love with absolute power.

so you can either use suffering to deny the existence of the god, or believe in him. it's either the whole package, or none of it. i'm not sure if i explained that clearly, but whatever.

"The Athanasian paradox that one is three and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."

[Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Smith]

"They [preachers] dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live."

[Thomas Jefferson]

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."

[James Madison, 1803]

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

[Susan B. Anthony]

"As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions, and a history of bad times and bad men. There are but a few good characters in the whole book."

[Thomas Paine, Letter to William Duane, April 23, 1806]

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."

[Benjamin Franklin from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728]

"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."

[Thomas Paine]

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."

[Thomas Paine]

"My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the dissenting [puritan] way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. [Robert Boyle (1627-1691) was a British physicist who endowed the Boyle Lectures for defense of Christianity.] It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist"

[Benjamin Franklin, "Autobiography,"p.66 as published in *The American

Tradition in Literature,* seventh edition (short), McGraw-Hill,p.180]

"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

[Mark Twain]

"One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed it - they also believed the world was flat."

[Mark Twain]

"Strange...a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied seventy times seven and invented Hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him!"

[Mark Twain]

"A man is accepted into a church for what he

believes and he is turned out for what he knows."

[Mark Twain]

"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for 800 years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry."

[Mark Twain, "Europe and Elsewhere"]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy."

[Carl Sagan]

"(When asked merely if they accept evolution, 45 percent of Americans say yes. The figure is 70 percent in China.) When the movie "Jurassic Park" was shown in Israel, it was condemned by some Orthodox rabbis because it accepted evolution and because it taught that dinosaurs lived a hundred million years ago--when, as is plainly stated at every Rosh Hashonhan and every Jewish wedding ceremony, the Universe is less than 6,000 years old."

[Carl Sagan, _The Demon-Haunted World:

Science as a Candle in the Dark_, p. 325]

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

[Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.)"

[Carl Sagan, "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection,"]

"Many statements about God are confidently made by theologians on grounds that today at least sound specious. Thomas Aquinas claimed to prove that God cannot make another God, or commit suicide, or make a man without a soul, or even make a triangle whose interior angles do not equal 180 degrees. But Bolyai and Lobachevsky were able to accomplish this last feat (on a curved surface) in the nineteenth century, and they were not even approximately gods."

[Carl Sagan, _Broca's Brain_]

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?"

[Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark"]

"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking."

[Carl Sagan]

Open your eyes

P.S. I can quote too

EDIT: added more qoutes

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 04-09-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

hmm...i've been thinking about this over the past couple of days, and it occured to me that god is not only all-powerful, but also all-knowing and all-loving.

since he is all-loving and all-powerful, he will use his all-knowing to decide the best way to implement his perfect love with absolute power.



Yet since he is all powerful and can do the illogical, he can improve on what he decided was the best way to implement his perfect love.

There in lies the idiocy of believing in an omnipotent, all-loving and omnisicent god.