Playing God
Tragedy struck in Florida as three young children ( six, four, and one years old) died inside a refrigerator that had been left open in a back yard.
Contrast this horrible event with the words of a Christian apologist about God's role in "unfair" deaths.
-
The deadly incident unfolded Sunday as the children -- ages 1, 4 and 6 -- were playing outside in their yard, the Suwannee County Sheriff's Office said Monday.
When an adult who was watching them -- the mother of one of the children -- went inside to the bathroom, the kids climbed into the freezer, which was recently brought to the home, the sheriff's office said.
When the woman returned to the yard, she couldn't find the children, so she woke up the other woman who was home and they scoured the property, the sheriff's office said.
The women opened the freezer -- which was not plugged in -- and found the kids inside, not breathing, so they called 911 and gave the children CPR, the sheriff's office.
The children were hospitalized and all died. It appears all three suffocated, Suwannee County Sheriff Sam St. John told ABC News Monday.
===========================================================================
Ask yourself this: When someone dies, did God “murder” that person? No.
Causing or allowing someone to die is not murder for God because all life is His anyway.
He is the creator of life, and only He can resurrect it. In fact, people never go out of existence, they just change locations. God is under no obligation to keep people alive here for eighty years. His plans for eternity are the ultimate point of this life anyway.
So God is perfectly just to move you from this life to the next life at any age he chooses—two or eighty-two. That’s what is meant by the phrase “play God.” The source of all life is justified in taking life whenever He decides.
from "STEALING FROM GOD" by Frank Turek, pg 176
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
473 visitors
The "Christian" explanation is not sufficient and I don't think would console most people. Maybe that is why more people lose faith.
According to the Bible, the Christian god is both omnipotent and omniscient, so he could have prevented their deaths but he didn't. Believers also claim that he has a plan for them so these deaths were predetermined from birth. Either that god is a psychopath who likes to see people suffer or they should not be mourning these children's deaths because it was all part of their god's plan.
I would not worship a god that treated people in that manner, but I'm not a Christian.
When I have conducted the funeral service for someone taken from this life before the time mankind considers appropriate, I share the following
1. None of us from the moment we are born are guaranteed tomorrow. The soul is eternal and this life is but a flicker of the eye over the space of eternity.
2. Going back over 2700 years ago, God revealed through the Jewish prophet Isaiah how we are to consider the early death of someone who doesn’t “deserve to die as man arbitrarily defines it”
3. Children go into the presence of God where they never experience pain, tears, or suffering. The same for anyone born again through faith in Christ.
The atheist reacts strangely and often harshly to this message because they deny the eternal nature of the soul. we are eternal souls temporarily inhabiting these physical bodies.
This is an unsupported belief that atheists do not share with believers.
Prove there's a soul! Atheists simply do not buy into that nonsense!
That's nice. Prove it! BTW, how much does a soul weigh?
Atheism is a lack of belief; and disbelief in God. It is neutral. The opposite of theism. Without a worldview? It can not "buy into" anything. Right or wrong?
Here you go, playing semantics again. The one thing atheists necessarily have in common is that they don't believe that any gods exist. Which can be phrased as "not buying into" religious nonsense about souls.
Atheists don't tend to be concerned about being dead. Nobody wants a painful dying process, of course, but death itself? It's just nothingness. Like the sleep phase without dreams. It apparently strikes you as "strange" that we aren't terrified as you are, about death. It's just a natural process. No eternal torture from some evil psychotic boogeyman, no harps and clouds, no eternal groveling at god's feet on streets paved of gold.
So, your god inflicted pain, suffering and tears on all of humanity and animalkind - inflicted disease on animals and plants - because 2 people it created did exactly what it knew they would do, and therefore it needed a human sacrifice before it would stop committing mass murder and ordering its followers to murder entire villages and rape and enslave the young virgin girls. Then it committed both murder and suicide in a single act so it would forgive us for being what it made us to be, and to convince itself to stop torturing us quite so much. Then it still makes us suffer pain and tears, until we die and it can torture us for eternity if we haven't groveled properly. But we have a get out of hell free card if we worship our abuser! O super cosmic joy!
If I lost a child and some asshole dared to tell me it was better off dead, I'd punch them in the face. Why don't we all just kill ourselves, or refuse to procreate, if death is so wonderful and some evil god is punishing us all throughout our lives? The Cosmic Abuser.
I will stop; not on topic. (Smile.)
IMO: The believe in some sort of a "GOD" does not necessarily have to come from ancient books written by men.
Really? You believe we have souls and that they live eternally? I always told by atheists that there is no such thing as a soul and that when you die you simply cease to exist
You might want to reread epistte’s comment.
That's true; humans seem to be wired to believe in gods, and have invented many gods throughout our existence. Someone initially invented each god. And some people's idea of a god doesn't even involve something like the Christian god ... nature is god, to some.
"In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time. This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed ; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another."
That's what I believe. I do not believe that a magical immortal soul was created when I was conceived. I believe that a small bit of universal energy, matter taken from both my parents, combined, grew by feeding on other sources of energy making them my own, and will someday die and have the energy that I collected during the years I was alive released back into the universe, not a joule of which is lost, just transferred to other forms. So in essence, as an atheist, I believe I will live on in all other things, just like the star dust I'm made of is living on in me today.
I think we all know the definition of atheism.
That neither makes sense, nor is really relevant.
Yes...and?
Are you suggesting atheists or atheism doesn't have a worldview?
Spare us the semantics. Atheists simply do not "buy into," i.e. accept religious claims without evidence.
You have me at a disadvantage. I "repented' of @1.1.4. at @1.1.7. Check it out!
Lol. No. Atheism is the direct opposite of theism. Agnosticism is neutral.
Run that by John Russell, please Cerenkov!
I suggest you don't examine quantum physics or you really will be "dismayed"...
What idea of quantum physics are you referring to?
No, there is no evidence that we do have a soul.
That is correct. Lights out and game over so our atoms revert to being plant chow.
Not sure how he was able to Spell
quantum physics, let alone debate TiG on the subject, but hell, he'll probably pray for you, and i'm hoping (& Praying) he preys on me, cause then, my prayers will have been answered with a nother question, that hopefully, god willing, with out a Mark, will make a point exclaimed, but unlike mark, the question (?) mark, he spells it with a Q
The idea of a soul is just as irrational as all the rest of religious voodoo and superstition.
The Christian idea of a soul has multiple uses. It is a comfort mechanism so people do not accept that life is finite. Its also a carrot to entice people to obey their created god as a reward for their dutiful behavior, even when the people start to question if the teachings are irrational and immoral.
Now I'm skeptical: That's nice, Prove it!
What are you asking me to prove? I have previously explained the logical burden of proof about the existence of God, so the onus rests on your shoulders to prove that your god exists since you are making a positive claim that something exists without offering any evidence except a belief to support your claim. This logical concept has been explained to you multiple times before and yet you try to feign ignorance as an act of intellectual dishonesty.
Soul. Hello??? Now I'm skeptical: That's nice, Prove it!
Insults are not arguments.
Then you only have yourself to blame.
Repent of what exactly? That makes no sense.
Hey, that's my line! lol
epistte is merely describing the observed benefits, she wasn't claiming she can prove souls don't exist or are "only" a comfort mechanism. But you can't deny that some people do draw "comfort" from their belief in an immortal soul, it means they never have to struggle with the concept of no longer existing. And you can't deny that religions use that idea as an inducement or enticement to their version of faith. So what exactly do you want her to prove?
Make sense now? I can go back further one more step. —Anything for you, Gordy!
The Christian idea of a soul has multiple uses. It is a comfort mechanism so people do not accept that life is finite. Its also a carrot to entice people to obey their created god as a reward for their dutiful behavior, even when the people start to question if the teachings are irrational and immoral.
"All slam all the time"!
huh ?! you don't think that death, when your nervous system along with the rest of your body ceases to function anymore, is not enough satisfactory proof that life is finite ?
What is the context here, Phoenyx13? Flesh and bone life or soul life?
The burden of proof is on you, again. If you assert that there is a god, it is your duty to support that assertion.
If you assert that souls exist, again the burden is on you to support that assertion.
Context is important. . . and reasonable . Followi this discussion from its 'root.'
That's nice. Prove it!
Do you assert (claim) that human beings have eternal souls?
If so, explain why. Can you do so without simply parroting what other human beings have told you?
Still swinging away, eh?
You might as well beat your head against a brick wall for all the good arguing with these folks does.
But I do admire your tenacity!
I did. Did you?
You believe the soul exists. Epistte does not. Yes, I realize that her post does not say verbatim "I don't believe that souls exist," but that is essentially the point of her comment. Her readers are expected to reason as much for themselves. You're the one making the positive claim. It is incumbent on you to prove it.
No comment.
Handing out 'handfuls' of benefit of the doubt, eh? What nothing to spare for CB? (Sad face/happy face.) Sounds like an assertion by episste:
Life is finite.
That's nice. Prove it!
This is good. I prefer you coming out and honestly stating that you refuse to answer a direct question. Much better than a scripture-ridden cloud of smoke followed by deflective questions and allegations.
Progress.
Do you assert that life continues past the point when brain function ceases? We have evidence that brain function ceases. We have evidence that hearts stop beating, and lungs stop inhaling and exhaling, and cellular respiration ceases.
Do you have evidence otherwise?
I don't do bait.
Good choice. Best to not try to answer questions for which you have no real answer.
Rigor mortis sets in. Blood pools by gravity. People don't flinch to touch. Et ceteras. This is getting grossly off-topic, nevertheless.
Can we find a path that leads to three kids dead in a refrigerator accident. (At least, pretend to be on topic.)
Well, considering there isn't a single thing in this universe discovered so far that doesn't have a beginning and an end, I would say that's pretty good evidence that everything in our universe is finite. Even the stars eventually burn out and die.
But proving the imaginary "soul" is finite isn't epistte's responsibility, she did not claim there absolutely is no immortal soul, she merely offered logical reasons for how and why the religious cling to the concept and attempt to push it on others.
"Believers do draw comfort from belief in an immortal soul and in God."
So she was right.
"What is wrong with using the macro approach to sharing the Gospel?"
What is wrong with spreading unproven religious opinions on others using the carrot and the stick? Using the carrot promise of an immortal soul, a promise of eternal bliss (though few faithful can actually describe what that bliss will entail other than being stuck in the backside of God which is supposed to be really comfortable) and the stick threat of hellfire, torture and damnation to sell a product is well beyond the sleaze of a car salesman. The product would never be allowed to be sold on TV since the claims it makes cannot be proven, just like when a weight loss drug promises benefits it can't actually prove and get's fined by the FCC. Religion would be, and should be, the most fined marketing group in history for all it's unproven claims, yet gullible people keep on buying their products.
"If you were (you were) a preacher; Did you end your altar calls by tediously detailing to a guest/member the rigors of daily 'pruning' which goes into acquiring "spiritual milk and meat"? I think not. All that timid, trembling, and questioning emanating from the "newbie" —you would not have wanted to overwhelm anyone!(Yes onlookers, I am speaking in "Christian-speak" to the former church leader right now)."
The "rigors" of daily spiritual watering and pruning were regular topics, as they are in many Churches. I was deeply indoctrinated and tried to believe as hard as I could, even though my analytical mind questioned many of the traditions and beliefs in the back of my head, sadly I kept those doubts silent for decades.
Eventually I did reach a point where I knew I could no longer teach others something I did not wholeheartedly believe myself. And even then it was an almost impossible struggle to tear myself away from the community, friends, peers, everyone around me that I had to leave to get away from the virulent mind disease of religion. It forced me to choose between family and sanity. I chose sanity and now out of more than two dozen cousins, nieces, nephews, brothers and sisters I have, only two will still speak with me. I am a pariah, an apostate in their eyes for abandoning their traditions. All because I chose to question the things that everyone else were told to just take on faith. Religion generates sheep.
Gullible, small minded sheep who have no problem being goaded into different beliefs without evidence. If their Shepherd tells them they have immortal souls, then they have immortal souls, no thinking required, no questioning the existence of something we have zero evidence for, it's just presented as fact, and the sheep gobble it up because it comes with a calm reassuring voice that tells them their shepherd will take care of them and won't ever lie to them. And it's easier for the sheep to believe their shepherd is right than it is to admit they may be wrong and they have just been tricked to stand in some religions sheep pen ready to be sheared or slaughtered for the benefit of the religion.
So bitter. Anyway, I forgive you for the clever and gross insult regarding God's 'backside.' That's all I have on this one.
What believers of all faiths and world religions are up against is,
who want to set the agenda for churches and religion across the globe and on the internet.
What is happening is these individual factions, which so far as I have learned act separately, have also formed a kind of cabal, with the purpose of using science and critical-thinking to limit the teaching of faith to their respective church grounds, and remove their voice from public spaces (internet included) and afterwards the long-term strategy, if feasible, eliminate God, faith, and world religions which the cabal does not agree with such as a favorite of theirs, Jainism.
Nobody is trying to set any agenda for your churches and your religions.
What you are upset about is that you post ridiculous crap and get honest feedback, instead of a bunch of sheep bleating in agreement with your absurd claims. If you feel so threatened by science, it's probably best for you not to engage critical thinkers in discussion, but go to some Christian site where everyone will agree with you. Regarding the "remove their voice from public spaces" - if you don't like our Constitution, you're welcome to move to a theocracy.
You certainly do suffer from a persecution complex and delusions of an atheist cabal trying to eliminate world religions, that's for sure.
Maybe we should, just so we can validate such fear or paranoia. Maybe we should say our "agenda" is to tax churches into oblivion or eliminate religion altogether? You know, give them that "aha, I knew you had an agenda" moment of triumph. Lol
So relieved. It was like a mountain being lifted off my back when I left. No more confused sheep desperately looking to me for answers that simply don't exist unless they're created out of thin air. No more having to feel dirty trying to encourage others to have a faith in something I was beginning to doubt myself. No more supporting an organized religion that has become nothing more than a vehicle for making profit, for sheering sheep.
As for my comment on what heaven has been described as, I have yet to have anyone actually refute that it isn't just being tucked inside God somewhere, no responsibilities, no reason for learning, no reason for existing other than to apparently faun over the supposed creator of the universe, telling him how great he is, singing his praises, a true brown noser position for eternity. If you have some other version of heaven to propose, let's hear it, otherwise my analogy stands...
What individualists using logic and reason are up against:
1. Religious extremists (whether Islamic, Christian or any other faith flavor)
2. Thousands of years of ignorant indoctrination
3. Organized religion with billions of dollars and billions of adherents
4. Religious adherents attempting to legislate morality with secular laws
5. Hypocritical discrimination against non-believers
You packed a great many canards in that one. Have a nice one! Back on duty? /s
So, no evidence?
On the topic? What about the kids?!
You're perfectly happy to talk about infinite life (even if off topic) until asked to present evidence of infinite life.
Then you want to get back on topic.
What is your obsession with my obsession? You should be perfectly happy to discuss natural "Mother Nature" means of death. But here you are steering away from the natural world onto a path that you say you detest: What going on with you? There are dead children here and you want to discuss your lack of belief and adjoining disbelief!
i believe the context would be flesh and bone life - even tying it to the topic of the kids. There is no proof of a "soul life" - since you are asserting there is by your question, then you must provide empirical proof of such a thing existing. So far, we are all well aware that life is finite and ends once your body and it's internal systems (including your brain) cease to function.
Again, I have not asserting anything. I asked for context. I just wanted to know your frame of reference. You informed me. Sad the children died in this accident caused by human carelessness.
You do not believe in the soul. How can you discuss it's eternal existence? You can not.
Time better spent elsewhere. Happy trails to you . . . .
There is s a much needed clarification called for here. There are at least two types of Christian (and may be more I can not think of immediately):
1. Nominal Christians (These are people who treat their faith lightly or seriously but are not deeply invested spiritually into it.) These people are not spirited-filled though you would not know it to look into the 'ranks.'
2. True believers. People with a deep and abiding spirit-filled faith. You strive to go deeper into a spiritual discipline of Good news and peace with all men.
Granted, some in each group have only a 'measure' of the faith, because we all only see 'darkly.' Paul wrote for the church and could only explain so much of the circumstances of life people in his day and beyond would be riddled with individually and collectively.
So you now claim there are nominal Christians and true believers.
Isn't it wonderful how Christians seek to pretend they are better not only than atheists, but than other Christians who are not the "true Christians."
How sad .. and disgusting. Jesus had words about false prophets, you know .. and they were not kind.
Don't make this weird: It is not about you. And, it definitely is not about me.
Ahh, the "No True Scotsman" argument. Who gets to determine which is which?
Jesus stated you will know them by their 'fruits'! And, if that fails then wait until the harvest comes and see who is left standing!
Matthew 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'"
It is a parable! Iits meaning is clear, nevertheless.
Since false prophets were who Jesus disliked the most, I should think that Matthew 13:30 would scare the hell out of you.
It always cracks me up when religious fanatics try to use examples of how evil your god is to convert people. BELIEVE OR BE ETERNALLY TORTURED! BWAHAHAHA! It's hilarious yet pathetic.
'despicable' might work too.
"Illogical" fits in there too.
And such a similarity to Trump - whenever someone uses a new word to point out a flaw in his argument, he then turns around and tries to project that onto atheists. But he doesn't even seem to understand what words mean. Now he's latched onto "obtuse" while clearly not even knowing what the word means.
Ditto for "canard".
I see that as a ‘Pee Wee Herman’ style of debate.
So if no one knows who is who until after they are dead, what is the point of categorizing them while alive? And who decides who goes into each category while alive? You never answered that question. Since you created the 2 categories, not God, who decided?
Do you have a dictionary. It is in mine. I digress, nevertheless. This discussion is disintegrating into gnashing teeth!
My goodness you corrected Tig and it was not "earthshattering." Go team!!!! /s
TiG has been emotionally-charged at calling me intellectually dishonest, and various assortment bad names for several years now. Fond memories of how disgusting thoughts 'radiate' out from me. He never misses an occasion to let me know. I think its a form of attachment. /s
Gotta love it! I have no choice. (-:
Ozzwald, those two categories of people exist in the modern church. It is a well-known fact that some people are "social Christians" born and never left their 'home.' Others, leave the 'milk' ( elementary things ) of the experience and go after the 'meat' ( deeper maturity , for example where we learn to let other people be who they are) of the experience.
For some further analysis you should explore on your own or ask discretionary questions. As you might have noticed, there are people i n here just looking to point out proselytizing comments. So, I dare not delve too long or deeply into scriptures to explain a biblical reference or biblical point of interest. It has to be relevant to discussion.
Anyway, sad too, some concepts do not work as soundbites (as what I provided did not in this case. It did not 'jar' a memory up). Maybe, it might help if you go there and read the chapter for yourself! I am allowed only to share so much. (Smile.)
NOTE: See @ @ 1.2.5 .
Oh the outpouring of emotion from the logical and emotionless on display. Now I am a 'false prophet.' Spawn of fanatics and evil God! Priceless!
There is nothing emotional about pointing out that you were being intellectually dishonest. It is a simple statement of fact.
"Oh the outpouring of emotion from the logical and emotionless on display. Now I am a 'false prophet;"
Nothing emotional there either. Simply pointing out what your bible says.
Thanks. I'll get over it. Peace and blessings.
First of all, there are no, or at least very very few "facts" in regards to religion. With over a thousand different flavors of Christianity, and over 500 different versions of the Bible, everything is up in the air.
So you are saying that nominal Christians never leave their house, while true believers go out to meet other people? But, once again, who determines who goes where in these man made categories? Maybe nominal Christians are the ones that get out, while true believers never leave their homes and just stay there truly believing.
After all, doesn't the Bible tell you to kill people that worship other Gods? So shouldn't "true believers" stay inside their house to avoid having to kill people of other faiths?
This entire argument is a No True Scotsman fallacy because they are claiming that they are the true Christian sect and everyone else has it wrong. All theistic religions claim that their God is the one true god. It is an inherent problem with all theistic religions because they are based on beliefs with no facts or proof of a god existing.
I claimed no such thing. "All slam all the time!" This is par and parcel why it is waste of time to discuss faith/God/religion with some atheist who always look for some negative aspect to play up—real or imagined.
I'm wrapping up here. Because this is a "dead" discussion to me >>>> vultures are appearing on the horizon now.
John appears to have left off as is his stated number of days. (Smile.)
Used since the 15th century as a legal term, with part meaning “a portion” and parcel “something integral with a whole,” this idiom began to be used more loosely from about 1800.
The noun par has meant “that which is equal” since the mid-1600s; the idiom here was first recorded in 1832.
Ozzwald, It is a well-known fact that some people are "social Christians" born and never left their 'home.'
Note, in the original, home, has single quotes around it. It refers to church home. So some people never leave their church home. It means nominal Christians enjoy the cultural life of the church without improving or developing themselves further spiritually than when they first began.I have no idea your level of church sophistication. I try not to presume.
As long as you got my drift, I'm good, DP! Thanks for any assist! If that is what you mean!
Where did I correct him? I never said he was wrong or inaccurate.
When has he been emotional? he simply calls it like he sees it. And he happens to be right. Just simple fact.
Not "disgusting." Just disingenuous, rhetorical, emotional, and dishonest. But not disgusting.
For the most part, this nails my reaction to most of his comments nowadays.
Coming soon: Atheism.
My statement still applies.
Okay. Well, I am moving on to other threads, so maybe there. We appear to be finished talking about the children who died . . . .
Enough is enough
Article is locked
more God arguments are always just over the horizon anyway
This article shook me up a bit when I read it - where it says:
"So God is perfectly just to move you from this life to the next life at any age he chooses—two or eighty-two."
...since I'm going to turn 82...11 days from now.
Actually, the only people I know that were "Playing God" were George Burns and Alanis Morissette.
Other than as an "accident" , I don't think we can explain why a one year old (and a four and six year old) dies. I do feel the explanation has to do with free will, and I don't think events like this argue against the existence of God, but I don't like the explanation from the book I quoted either.
I don't like it either. It's a tragedy and if there is anything to take away from this, is that we have free will, and god, if he is there, is really hands off.
The universe must operate on cause and effect. The adults left the freezer door unlocked or open (They should have duct taped it round and round) and the kids climbed in. Something caused the door to close.
If God can work miracles I guess God could temporarily suspend the laws of cause and effect but if every potential tragedy was turned into a miracle, what would become of the laws?
What I didnt like about the book passage is the Christian writer saying that God owns our lives and can end them as He pleases. I dont think that is a comforting imagery for many people.
John bear with me as I probe your statement. I am sadden that you are sad over this human tragedy, but what irritates you about Mr. Turek's explanation, on a deeper level most?
(Love that hat avatar! You rascal you. I see what you did there!)
Yeah, when it's shrunken down on these comments I think the hat will go by a lot of people.
The Christian writer says it in a way that makes it look like God would end lives for no reason. That may well be the case, but I don't think he should put it like that.
I doubt there is "no reason," but it could certainly be a reason we don't like, agree with, or understand. But then we aren't the creators of the universe. Being humbled at our place in the universe can be frustrating, especially as we live in a society that celebrates individual autonomy and freedom. Also remember that if you believe in God and the afterlife, it isn't really "ending life" at all.
Morgan Freeman?
In what movie?
"Bruce Almighty".
Thanks, Sandy. I never watched that movie, although Morgan Freeman is one of my favourite actors.
Then you will love the flick.
I haven't seen it, either. Not a Jim Carrey fan.
It's not nearly as annoying as some of the others, lol
Bruce Almighty was irreverent and annoying. Oh and apart from that, Jim Carey was zany as ever.
Now if you want to watch its 'cousin' with Morgan Freeman in it, try: "Evan Almighty" 2007. Humorous, Good plot, great ending. Steve Carell will give you a " pepper-belly ."
I might have to give it a try, then. It got to the point that I avoided anything he appeared in.
This is very different from the other nonsense. Carrey actually plays a real person rather than a lunatic (such as Dumb & Dumber or the Pet Detective stuff).
There is a scene in this movie that is about as funny as it gets.
Neither am I, even though he's a fellow Canadian. I watch a lot of movies here, but when they play one of his I change the channel. Penguins?
Never played the role of god. She wrote and sang the song, "What if God Was One of Us," but not a bit the same thing. But 1 out of 2 aint bad for you, Buzz.
Actually, Alannis Morrisette did play God in "Dogma"
Joan Osborne sang "What if God was one of Us"
Maybe Osborne did a cover but Morissette wrote and sang it originally:
I stand corrected on her role in Dogma (loved that film--so sacreligious). Thanks.
And I stand corrected. Did not know about AM.
Life seems to operate as though there were no supreme entity. Inexplicable, unfair, tragic things occur all the time. As one would expect if no sentient entity is directing events.
Hey, stop saying what I said but only better, LOL.
GOOD !
Personally I wouldn't want to be a puppet even for whatever created life itself.
If all I was created for was for something else, even GOD itself... No thanks.
The question:
I would say probably not. Murder is an unlawful killing. Since God is making the law, he gets to define what's legal in the universe. Besides, assuming the children will enjoy eternal life, they haven't really been killed anyway.
That is certainly an interesting twist.
Agnostics and atheists don't care because they don't believe in God or an afterlife
Most Christian theists should not care because the unborn are going to heaven anyway.
very interesting
I wonder why God hates some kids so much that he makes them not die and move on to such bliss. Imagine a 103 year old nun, dying alone in a hospice bed after suffering from years of painful disease. He sure works in mysterious ways ...
so we can all stop fighting over abortion now right? (Addresses Tacos statement as well).
I find it so convenient when the religious make excuses for God when innocent children and people are killed and say its all his plan and they are living in eternal peace with the creator, yet get all bent about abortion, is it not also his plan and are these "babies" not also spending eternity in a wonderful super fun place?
In thinking about that, why do we need to have sex and pregnancy to create more humans, why isn't god just spitting them out on his own, and to go one step further, why are we created on this rock and not just created in heaven where we all end up anyway? what was the point of Eden or earth or the universe if God could have just had us all living in heaven to begin with....so confused
Didn't God already make the law? "Thou Shalt not Kill". He either violated his own law, or is a hypocrite, do as I say not as I do.
God could have prevented these deaths but he didn't. That appears to meet the standard of willful negligence.
Other people have died because they got closed into a refrigerator/freezer that could not be opened from the inside. To prevent this from happening, many states have enacted laws that unplugged refrigerators set outside for pickup must have the doors removed to prevent this from happening.
This is from the state of Florida,
The negligence is with the parents, not God. It is absurd to say God is responsible for the poor decision making of the parents.
That some English translations use the word kill instead of the more accurate word murder, gives an incorrect understanding for those looking to misrepresent what the Bible says
From the Jewish study of the Torah
Exodus 20:13
In Hebrew the word used here is “ratsach”. It refers to unjust killing and ONLY unjust killing.…. whether intentional or unintentional. It does not mean to “execute” as in carrying out a completely lawful judicial sentence. It does not mean killing an enemy in battle, or killing an intruder in defense of yourself or another. Murder is a very good translation for the word ratsach, and the way the Western world of today thinks of Murder or manslaughter is exactly as this verse intends.
Christians believe that God is both omniscient and omnipotent so he knew and he could have prevented these deaths if he so chose to do so.
he's not ? didn't God create these parents with poor decision making abilities ? why didn't he just create them with better decision making abilities ?
How come these machines do not safety release handles inside, or a hatch in the top? Write people! Make it happen in 2019!
Questions that come to mind:
1. God agreed with this happening?
2. After it happened, God did not use omnipotent power to bring the children back from the dead?
That line is more properly translated "do not murder."
For negligence to exist, a duty must exist. God doesn't owe you or anyone else anything.
Because there is no need for them when the fridge is being used. The only time children die in them is when they are laying outside not being used. Take the damn door off when you haul out your old fridge, it's not hard to do.
apparently God did agree with it happening, because God didn't show it's disagreement by preventing it or intervening in any other way.
this cracks me up ! isn't God the creator, in essence the Father ? are you stating a Father doesn't have a duty to his children (or creations) ? interesting parenting...
Why would you pray to someone like that and want to spend eternity with them? If believers claim that God loves them then there is a duty involved. You seem to be praying to an abusive, gaslighting sociopath.
God knew about it happening and didn't act to stop it.
It seems that your god agreed with children dying.
True. That is a well-established prevention solution too. whoever is the responsible owner that sat that device in a common space caused this. That said, I am reminded when my neighbor sat a refrigerator outside several years ago on the public access street without removing the doors. How I watched that thing for days to be extra vigilant!
Odd, because it never crossed my mind to go over and tell the man of the house about the safety door removal step. I guess I took for granted they knew better! Looking back, I had a role to play and I did not do it. (Sad.) I won't let that happen on my "watch" again! (My neighbor has two small boys. At the time, they were 'foolin' around' with several visiting cousins around it.)
Then god is either negligent, or unnecessary. Either way, then we don't owe god our worship or belief.
How convenient! >sarc<
Wow, what a justification for god committing murder. It caters right to emotional appeal. It's like a victim of abuse defending their abuser: "he beats (or in this case, smites) me because that's how he shows his love for me."
You will probably take this the wrong way, I will ask that you do not take it the wrong way, but as a rhetorical statement:
If you made a clay pot, would you have a duty to it?
That's an inanimate object; nowhere near the same. If I had a child, I'd have a duty to it - if you bring a child into this world, or adopt, you have a duty to it. If you adopt a pet, you have a duty to it. A houseplant .. hopefully not, or I'm going to hell.
Why should that make a difference?
Why? Parents of many species not only ignore their offspring, some even eat them.
Look, personally, I think I have more value than a clay pot, but then again, I'm biased. I also have God telling me I'm important and that counts with me. But I am also humble before God. I didn't make the universe, he did. I am a speck. Any bit of consideration he throws my way is by his grace, not because I'm owed it.
When did that happen because that would be proof of god if you could empirically prove it top others. If you couldn't prove that it happen but you still believe it............... I'll just stop here because others can see where this is going.
Your claimed relationship with god is not a mentally healthy relationship. Religion has taught you to discredit yourself.
Isn't there two of you ?
I have two sides, a pilot and a co pilot as I refer to them. One sees something and says "I WANT THAT !" The other says "dont be ridiculous that's just expensive crap that won't last and is overpriced, keep looking."
Some call it a consequence, some call it the holy spirit, I call it my co pilot. He watches over me and helps me stay on course. I still am in control and choose whether I listen or not.
I assumed everyone has this.
This copilot seems to think a lot of me for some reason as well. that's nice.
The voice of GOD ? well I sure dont know.
So he actually said, "Thou Shalt Not Murder"? Doesn't change the fact, your God has "murdered" people, so he has still violated his own law, or is a hypocrite.
On one hand there is the Bible - a demonstrably errant book written by ancient men and wholly uncorroborated. ( Substitute the other competing and contradicting holy books while enumerating the world's religions. )
On the other hand there is all the other information available through normal observation, science and logic.
The former (the Bible) is an excellent argument that the biblical God is simply a character in a story.
The latter suggests that it is possible that our universe was created by a sentient entity but, if so, we know nothing about said entity. We do not know if the entity exists much less is paying attention to what is taking place or even cares. The fact that bad things have forever happened to innocent human beings - that life is not fair - is exactly what one would expect if there were no über-power directing the events of reality.
If there is a creator entity (a god) the entity is a complete mystery to mankind and has been for all of time. The agenda-driven imaginations of ancient men is a poor substitute for knowledge of the grandest possible entity.
That can also be attributed to humans having free will to do whatever they want.
Yes. But for human beings to have free will there either is no über-power or the über-power is not directing the events of reality.
And if you really want to think this through, go beyond the events caused by human will. Bad things happen to innocent people by the hands of other people and also by events that are beyond human control such as earthquakes, disease, floods, volcanoes, etc. No free will element there.
So ask yourself why a four year old little girl must suffer and die from leukemia. Free will?
I have never claimed God micro-manages our lives. If He did, then no point in having free will.
Diseases and weather all occur naturally.
Don't know anyone who claims otherwise.
Why write this? I did not accuse you of making any claims.
That was my point. They are not the result of free will. Natural events would be acts of god if there is a god. That is, only god would have any control over them.
Then why write this?
To explain why the existence of an über-power is what really matters. Free will is not the explanation for why bad things happen. The explanation goes back to the existence or non-existence of god.
Note again: why must a four year old little girl suffer and die from leukemia? Free will is not the answer.
How so?
Free will has consequences, correct?
If one chooses to do evil, then that is a choice that person alone made, correct?
The choice was made by THAT one person and has no bearing on whether there is a God or not.
A small girl who has leukemia may indeed die from it, and may suffer. Tragic.
What does that have to do with free will?
Because free will does not explain all the unfairness of reality.
Nothing. That is the point.
Why do you claim reality is unfair?
Isn't the whole world just a series of random events affecting random people randomly?
Then why bring it up?
Do you consider reality to be fair?
Because I made the point that free will is an incomplete explanation for why reality is unfair.
Sure do. Why answer my question with a question?
You believe reality is unfair. Free will has never had anything to do with fairness. It is just that we have choices to make in life and make them accordingly.
Why do you think reality is unfair? Reality is just life. How does life get to be considered unfair?
You think reality is fair. Interesting. So how is it fair for a little girl to be taken from her home, raped, murdered and displayed in a provocative pose? (That is an actual event by the way.)
How is that fair?
Again, tragic. The result of men exercising free will, correct?
It wasn't something else causing her death, correct?
How is it unfair if I contract a disease and you don't?
I guess from your comments you are interested in blaming something or someone for tragic events. Start with the people who do the bad things.
Why would you think that random events are fair or unfair? Fair and unfair would normally be associated with people feeling they were treated differently than others by others. What determines if someone gets a disease? Is it someone wishing it on you? Someone forcing it on you?
In this case. In the leukemia case there is no free will element. In both cases where do you find fairness?
To ask that question you would have to think that getting cancer is fair. Again, explain how it is fair for a four year old to die from leukemia.
Presumption and speculation are typically wrong. Better to read what a person writes rather than engage in wild speculation.
Age has nothing to do with it. Did the disease seek out the child or adult? Or just occur naturally?
It wasn't based on wild speculation, it was based on your choice of not answering my questions.
How is life unfair, and how do you personally determine that?
Do you consider the weather and climate to be unfair?
Random events will not result in fair outcomes (at least not in the short term).
Do you think reality is entirely random? Pretty sure you are a Christian. If so, you would believe that reality is not purely random. So let's go with that assumption. Explain, in a non-random reality, how a little girl dying of leukemia at age four is fair (or any one of millions of possible examples)?
The results are demonstrably unfair. Some people lose their homes and their lives. Why? Did they do something to deserve that?
How is it fair that a monster like Stalin lived a full life while committing atrocities while little children die in a building demolished by a hurricane?
Gee, I guess Mother Nature is just horrible.
And who gets to decide what exactly is fair or unfair? Two people may have wildly opposing views on what is fair.
Anyways, what do you propose to do to combat this unfairness you are talking about?
Anything at all?
What makes you think anyone can do anything about the unfairness of life?
Well Texan given you are heading down increasingly silly tangents, it is clear that you are never going to explain how you could make the bizarre claim that reality is fair.
Once again, answering with a question.
SMH
I haven't complained about any perceived "unfairness" of life. Life is life. Live it. I'll let others worry about "fairness".
I don't really have time to worry about nonsensical things out of my control.
But no one says that Mother Nature is an all loving, forgiving god. She is what she is.
So Mother Nature is neither fair nor unfair--she just is.
That is my believe anyways.
That is my belief, too. I don't think nature singles people out for some obscure reason.
And that is why I consider it to be fair.
To me, unfair would mean someone or something is deliberately trying to punish or harm someone.
You have not explained how reality is fair. And clearly you realized your error and chose to equivocate with the ambivalent stance of reality is neither fair nor unfair .
If God interceded to prevent every death no one would ever die.
We have this endless universe that no one can explain. Some people try and explain it through a belief in God and some people try and explain it through "science", which becomes an ergo God for some people.
As long as they do no harm, people who believe in God should be allowed to believe what they like and practice their beliefs without being ridiculed. Unless you KNOW that God does not exist and does not approve of Christianity, and you don't know that because it is impossible to know that, then you should lean more towards leaving Christians alone than ridiculing them . (When I say "you" I mean all aggressive atheists, and not Epistte).
I knew when I seeded this article that it would probably go the way it has, but that doesn't make it a good thing.
If God exists, I don't think we can understand his (it's) purposes, never have and never will be able to. It is "above our pay grade". Human beings interpret belief in God through a human prism, which is all it can be. It is neither good or bad in itself.
From a deist: Ii dont know what GOD is, But it could be mother nature. It could be everything, including us. GOD could be the creator and the creation.
Mother Nature is indifferent. And if there is a god, it is apparently indifferent too, although some people believe the Abrahamic God deliberately saves some people, deliberately kills other people, and deliberately lets others suffer terribly. Even when I was religious, I wasn't able to believe in an interventionary god.
I agree. We know nothing about the grandest possible entity (God). We do not even know if God exists. All we know is that (as of now) it is possible that there exists a supreme creator entity. We have no knowledge of why we were created, what God intends (if anything), what God wants of his creations (if anything), etc.
So when people blow up others in the pursuit of the glory of God they are acting on, almost certainly, beliefs that were invented by ancient men pretending to be and/or speaking for the grandest possible entity.
I don't think there is one either. Btw.. that was the whole final concept to Rabbi Kushner's book, "When bad things happen to good people". God is real hands off. It is the only logical conclusion if you believe that God is love and yet bad things happen.
Many people want to feel they have a personal connection with God. Many people who don't have a specific religion say they feel 'spiritual' at times. Aldous Huxley wrote a book about "the perrenial philosophy" which was a recounting of mysticism through the ages across all the major religions, and no religion. Clearly there are a large number of people who have an innate craving to feel connected to something beyond this human existence. Christianity and Hinduism , and to a lesser extent , I think, Judaism and Islam, all have ritual and practice , and a certain amount of "mumbo jumbo" passed down over millennia. I see no harm in it as long as they do not try and force other people to agree with them.
But again the Christian god is said to be all loving and forgiving, Mother Nature is never described as such.
Religion is comforting for most. And religion is for others a means of controlling people - encouraging people to do things they would likely not otherwise do.
I think we would all be better off letting the words of ancient men be just that. That does not prevent anyone from believing in a supreme creator entity. So much better to be honest and just accept the fact that we do not know what, if anything, a supreme entity might want us to do. So rather than follow the words of ancient men, maybe we could just try to live good, decent lives and not try to kill one another because of words penned by ancient men with agendas.
That's an ancient stone age philosophy. Didn't you ever watch the Flintstones?
Nonsense. All mankind deserve death because of sin. God NEVER unjustly takes human life.
Not all mankind believes in sin or your god.
Please look up battered spouses. You're acting like a typical abuse victim, convinced by your abuser that you're a piece of crap and that you deserve to be punished.
I haven't committed any sin that would make me deserve death. And if your god is so warped that it punishes people for what other people did, why would you worship something that disgusting?
I guess you'd need to ask christen about that. What I consider GOD isn't.
SARCASM: There must be a God that intervenes, because within minutes of the mere mention of this deity; critics, scoffers, and belligerent spirits appear out of thin 'air'! Could it be, these folks are an evidence for God's existence? Certainly God occupies a great deal of space in their heads!
NOTE: Forgive me for this "spin-off" on your comment. I could not resist the 'set-up'! I am solely responsible for the content of this comment.
So what was the point of your 1st reply? Were you debating whether anyone has ever said Mother Nature is all loving & forgiving? I would have to say I have never heard that said of Mother Nature, just the Christian god. As a Wiccan, I revere Mother Nature, but in no way regard her as disseminating between "sinners" and "pious".
Supposedly your God flooded the entire world drowning children and infants, please explain how an infant deserved to die.
Parroting the mere claims of ancient men.
wow I never even thought or felt GOD takes life. To me it only created knowing it had a limited life span here on earth. I do know people pray to die, some do, some don't. But people pray for stuff they never get everyday so...
GOD taking life...WOW, I'll be running that one thru my believes.
Thanks I guess.
lol
"please explain how an infant deserved to die."
hmmmmmmm…..Depends on what "IS" ………… worthy ? (smiling right now)
Look, I am sorry my answers don't satisfy you.
For something to be unfair, I believe that it must be deliberate.
You have not explained how reality is unfair, or why it is unfair.
[Deleted]
Should God have spared infants when He judged the parents? How would they have survived. Instead they are in heaven living with God
Hehe - one could say the same about terminated fetuses.
You believe in one mean god.
It matters not whether you believe. It doesn’t change who God is or the reality of sin. But you can count iPod that you will know that reality when you die
Yep, I will have a decision to make - spend time in Summerland, return to one of the multiple realms to live another life, or elevate my self to Goddess level.
Beautifully stated.
Ipod? Is that a much lesser asexual god? Or were you thinking in terms of currency?
Good, glad to hear that.
That should end any discussions about abortion then.
Wasn't me.... I don't like iPods.
Ding, ding, ding, ding We Have A Winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh my goodness?
Oh my greatness?
or the classic
OH my fucking Gawd?
This is not how the burden of proof works. I feel like you want me to leave my logic at the door when I reply or to not post in your threads.
This is an argument from ignorance logical fallacy.
That's pretty disgusting. According to the bible, the only reason your god drowned everyone - innocent animals and innocent humans - is because he allowed his fallen angels to rape human women, and he wasn't happy with their offspring. He could simply have prevented the rape rather than committing mass murder.
And what about all the firstborns he commanded to be murdered because he was pissed off at a pharaoh? Why not kill the pharaoh and spare the innocent babies?
I don't consider you a prophet. Many Christians believe in a loving god, not the psychopathic mass murderer you worship and make excuses for. Remember what Jesus said about false prophets - it is rather arrogant for you to assume that you personally know the nature of your god, how it thinks, and what it wants.
As for the reality of sin, piffle. Sin is just a religious concept that refers to bruising your god's massive ego, rather than to actual morality. I would have sinned by pissing your god off if it wanted me to kill my child to prove my faith in it, or if it directed me to murder a neighboring tribe and rape and enslave the young virgin girls. Another way I am much more moral than that evil fairy you worship. Why would anyone worship something so evil?
I was stating mother nature could be GOD. I added EVERYTHING could be GOD.
I dont know. To me GOD IS WHATEVER arranged the atoms to be all that is. I know no more and dont need to. My "religion" in a nutshell. Recently I realized GOD Could BE Everything as well. I still dont know and further believe NO living human does for sure.
So in other words, nothing to do with my post at all.
Most people see inequity all the time so the natural conclusion is that reality is unfair. The evidence sort of suggests it ... just a bit.
Your claim that reality is fair is rather bizarre since most everyone else holds that reality is not fair.
Given your odd position it makes sense that you elaborate. Clearly you are not going to do so. No need for these silly smokescreen games, just note that you have no intent of explaining yourself and walk away. The effect is the same. Everyone reading this knows you claimed reality is fair and refused to back that up.
In utero, the the first 8 weeks of pregnancy literally sees the human ( mammal ) fetus develop and lose gill slits, gill arches, a full coat of fur and a tail, all of which are later absorbed and lost. (chickens too)
Feral children rescued in the last 100 years, having been raised by monkeys or wolves , knew not of a higher power because no one indoctrinated them about
needing a reason to exist. Religion was one of the earliest forms of government and self recognition of tribes in a harsh world dominated by cruelty, war and slavery.
It is a man made construct that we seem to be on the beginning edge of learning to live without.
Just my ex catholic 2 cents.
If that is your opinion...OK
I was not contradicting or agreeing with you. true.
I was merely expressing the thoughts that came to me from reading the words in your post.
Sorry if that bothered you.
Prove it.
So it is okay, in your opinion, for your God to be a hypocrite and violate his own laws.
I see no need to explain myself to you. What I believe is what I believe, that is what I was asked, and that is what I answered. Why do you feel I owe you any explanation for anything I believe?
Here is an example of reality.
Joe makes $100k per year. Mike makes $50k per year. That is the reality. Is it unfair that Joe makes double what Mike does?
Here's another one:
California is experiencing a drought, and Pennsylvania is experiencing heavy rains. Is that fair?
You would be explaining to those reading why you claim that reality is fair.
I do not care at this point because it is obvious you have no explanation for your claim. So you have nonsense on the table with your name on it. Works for me.
And you have yet to state why you believe that reality is unfair, or how it is unfair.
Texan you really should read what people write before commenting (just recently even):
I will break it down for you, just to make sure this is clear:
Unfair = " Not based on or behaving according to the principles of equality and justice. "
Now, if one observes inequality (routinely) one would be justified in noting unfairness .
For example (again) most people would find the following to be an example of inequality (unfairness):
I really do not think I am the one who has to convince people that life is not fair. It would be easy to enumerate example after example and I am confident others could easily chime in with more examples of the extremely obvious unfairness of reality. Nobody likes this of course, but it is what it is.
You, in contrast, would need to counter the obvious and convince people that reality is actually fair.
There is no doubt in my mind as to why you continue to run from this challenge.
so a clay pot and your child are now equal since you created both ? interesting.... i don't know many people who equate their child with a clay pot, even if they created both, and can figure out which one they have a duty to and why they have a duty to that one.
is that what the human species generally does ? or are we not talking about humans anymore and trying to equate humans with reptiles or insects ?
Your supposed god created imperfect beings and your church has convinced you that he punishes people for being imperfect. Do you see the inherent problem in this situation? In the US we have consumer protection laws that prevent corporations from building junk and then blaming the consumer when they get hurt because of a product's inherent faults. Why would you put up with this behavior from a god that you claim loves you? The god that you claim to obey is gaslighting you because his behavior says that he doesn't love you or he wouldn't do this to you. He could have built a perfect being because he is omnipotent but he didn't. He also knew that you would fail because he is omniscient.
Your god displays tendencies of a psychopath and is a mass murderer. He would be arrested for domestic abuse if he was human. Is that someone that you believe that people should worship and want to spend eternity with?
but they say he works in mysterious ways
I did. Thanks.
I enjoy reading your snarky comments as much as anyone.
Your speculation is amusing.
That was not snark, Texan. I was quite serious.
Let's end this now.
Their god is the imagination of emotionally abusive men who needed a way to justify their behavior and to control people.
Okay, I'll bite. What is the point of death, epistte? What purpose does it serve in the natural realm?
You betcha!
What answer are you looking for? What evidence is there for anything that is not of the natural realm?
Death is the obvious natural inevitability of life.
So, these kids locked themselves into a refrigerator without any means of survival. No one responded to their calls. Theirs are the natural outcome. What? Certainly, you have no expectation of a miracle.
They very likely didn't know that they couldn't get out when they went in. Most kids are playing hide and seek when it happens. This is why many states have regulations that the doors must be removed if they are unplugged and put out for refuse pickup.
They are very well insulated so they are aslo quite sound proof.
Death is the natural outcome in this instance because they are airtight. They might expect a miracle but it doesn't mean that it was possible to happen.
No God allowed. No intervention allowed. No miracle allowed. There is no God in your frame of reference possessed of any ability to aid or injure these children. What occurred to them unfortunately occurred in the natural course. Subsequently, find the human factor responsible, please.
The mental gymnastics that you are capable of in to justify and defend your illogical religious beliefs would earn you 5 Olympic gold medals.
Where is the god that was supposed to save them, if you believe that God exists? My lack of belief would not prohibit your omniscient and omnipotent God from acting, if you claim that he exists.
The children died and are gone and never can be heard from again, epistte. In your "economy" there is no God to mouth off about. One would think you would be content, that a non-existent God did not do it!
Where do you get this nonsense? You seem to think that I am mad at your non-existent God for not acting. What annoys me is sloppy, emotional thinking and people who make excuses for their beliefs as a way to keep those beliefs alive instead of thinking logically. I understand that change can be scary because it is new, but if we don't change and adapt then what is life worth if we go through life with blinders on? What would be the downside if you accepted that religion is a myth and God doesn't exist?
It is horrific that they died because someone was too lazy to teach them to stay away from a refrigerator and didn't take the hinges off the door.
If I believed in a god, I wouldn't attribute a human emotion like hate to it but certainly indifference, aloofness, disinterest, unavailability. IOW, not much worthy of any kind of belief much less worship.
Someone like who, epistte?
Their parents/guardian would be the most obvious person. Who did you think that I am referring to?
The owner of the refrigerator has the responsibility to take the hinges off of it when they unplug it and put it out on the curb for pickup.
I agree. The adults in the frame caused this horrendous loss.
I am wondering if you thought that I was blaming your God for these children's deaths? Why would an atheist who doesn't believe in God place blame on that religious deity for these deaths? God must logically exist before it can act, and as of now, there is nothing to support God existing.
He routinely conflates hypothetical comments with reality to produce a Pee Wee Herman caliber ' gotcha '.
If you hypothetically noted that God (if God existed) did nothing to prevent these deaths, the response would ignore the hypothetical nature of your comment and treat your comment as if you were actually blaming God.
The ' gotcha ' then is the now cliche: ' why would an atheist blame that which the atheist does not believe exists? '.
As if a logical contradiction had been uncovered.
Why indeed. Glad you get it!
It is a foregone conclusion this is a human tragedy. No God.
If you believe that God exists then why didn't he act to save these children's lives? Why are you so eager to make excuses for your god's lack of action?
Are fetus in the womb more important to your God than children?
I have a few extremely acerbic one-liners from my logic professor, but there would be a flood of purple ink if I posted them.....................
What is this obsession with a non-existent God? Human error. No God. Better to do, "Lessons Learned."
What means this?
Why would an atheist who doesn't believe in God place blame on that religious deity for these deaths? God must logically exist before it can act, and as of now, there is nothing to support God existing.
Cf.
If you believe that God exists then why didn't he act to save these children's lives?
Should I be placing blame or something in an atheist's stead? Is that it?
I am not amused by your intellectual dishonesty as a way to deflect attention for your argument that was a logical failure.
First, one would have to be able to prove God exists to be able to pin a murder on him/it.
If you're ever able to do such a thing, then there is plenty of evidence that God has committed murder and aborts billions of fertilized eggs and fetus through miscarriage.
" 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them. ” Genesis 6:7
I find it interesting that a supposedly perfect, omniscient creator being would "regret" something he had done.
He/it is also the inspiration for many humans to commit murder.
"While in prison, Yates stated she had considered killing the children for two years, adding that they thought she was not a good mother and claimed her sons were developing improperly. She told her jail psychiatrist: "It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell." She told her jail psychiatrist that Satan influenced her children and made them more disobedient."
As for where humans should look for an answer, we have to continue examining the universe around us and so far there's zero evidence of an omniscient all powerful creator being.
I don't think you can blame religion for the way people abuse the principles. The people have free will.
I am sorry which are you arguing for,
some proof of God's existence?
Or, that God does exist and is the greatest murder of world history? It would help drastically to know!
Inside a closed box is either a God or no God. If you open the box and find out there is a God in there, then it's the greatest murderer in universal history. If there's no God then all the inexplicable, unfair and tragic events that befall humans were simply time and unforeseen occurrence, they happen because there is no God weighing in on any events, no God putting it's thumb on the scale of life.
Personally, I prefer to believe that the box is empty because then I don't have to be angry at a deity that could just sit idly by and watch as mothers drown their children in bathtubs, sick people rape and murder innocent children, innocent people get convicted and thrown in prison or sent to death row while guilty criminals get away with murder. It makes far more sense that these things happen because there is no Sherriff on duty rather than believing the Sherriff is incompetent or on the take to allow all these tragedies to happen.
Perspectives. Do you think this God, this "Sheriff," ought to enforce rules as you would do it?
Do you believe the God you worship infallible? If the God you claim to worship is perfect and can't make mistakes, why would it ever express regret? "for I regret that I have made them". If "this God, this Sheriff" defines justice and righteousness, but is also fallible, is it really God? If it's not fallible and has never made a mistake, then all this is Gods plan, the suffering, the pain, the injustice so many humans experience on a daily basis. And if that's the case, then it's a mass murdering psychopath, or it doesn't exist which to me is a far more comforting thought.
Buzz! Ranting is not an argument!
Do you think this God, this "Sheriff," ought to enforce rules as you would do it?
Unfortunately or fortunately humans are able to do whatever they chose to. personally I wouldn't want it any other way.
ya take the worse wth the best, that's reality.
there are consequences for every decision a human makes, some you may never see or realize are there, when people do bad things, there is always a price whether evident or not. That person at least becomes less to themselves.
reality is tough, staying alive for any creature is a struggle the weaker a person is the more short cuts they take and the less satisfying life they lead.
I'd rather be a tired happy satisfied poor man than a lazy rich unhappy one anyday.
Hurting others to get your way IMO will never lead to true satisfaction and happiness.
I live to be happy and I am.
I dont know of any murder that is. Their choice.
PS: I also dont believe death is the end. so... There's that. And I know from here on earth, pay backs are a bitch ! Murder at your own risk.
Peace !
................................
And NO I'm not saying its ok to murder or that murders are ok, I'kl saying its part of reality. I chose having reality over anything .... In reality ya dont get the best without also dealing with the worst. so, I deal.
what rules ?
The Laws of nature ?
Survival of the fittest ?
Divine authority. AKA: Sovereign authority.
What rant? I asked you some pertinent questions apparently you can't or won't answer. I think the matter of infallibility is integral to the question of whether said God "ought to enforce rules". Once that is addressed it's easier to answer whether God should enforce them as I would.
"Do you think this God, this "Sheriff," ought to enforce rules as you would do it?"
So if I move past the question of infallibility, I would have to answer your question with a resounding "Yes", God should enforce rules as I would. That's because I can only be subjective and have never claimed to be otherwise. Of course I would want whatever God exists to apply the law subjectively in favor of me and my family and by extension the rest of humanity since we are all related. I would want it to cherish human life, to protect the innocent, to demand equality and justice for all.
But what I'm sure you're really trying to get at is what you believe to be logical which is that any God you can imagine must, by definition, be above and apart from man and thus not bound by any human laws, not bound by our concept of justice. I find this a rather convenient deflection that believers don't really think through. It would be like Jeffrey Dahmer's defense claiming he's really an off-world alien from a much older species who originally seeded our planet to be a human ranch to raise their favorite food, human brains, which is why Dahmer was eating people. So, because he's above us humans and we really are just meat bags that the other alien race can do what it wants with because they were our "creators", would you vote to convict him of any crimes? If they could prove through DNA that he was an ancient alien species, a "creator" race, would you vote not to convict?
My point is, that humans can only see justice through a subjective lens, and there's zero reason we shouldn't continue to do this.
God is not you. Your body with all its accoutrements were provide to you for service, in a world full of dynamics. And should you climb your way to the top of a kingdom of this earth, you will be able to enforce your rules on mankind.
You want God to cherish human life, demand equality, and justice for all. If God does these things what will be your role in the process? You, I, and this room full of others would become meaningless. Why? Because God will do it all for us. A divine gift of "no-pain, no gain." We all know what becomes of such beings: fat, out of shape, lacking tone, empty-headedness, and a sedentary.lifestyle.
Your point is subjective. Because you deployed an all too human analogy of Jeffrey Dahmer inhumanity to man.
Still, that is not a big or deep enough picture of what is happening in this discussion at all, in my opinion. Your analogy better aligns with mankind's affinity for the "food-stuff" it shoots, dresses, and packages for its survival and commercial sales.
God being a Spirit does not eat, at least, does not eat anything we can specifically point out. This along puts God outside, apart, and above "the human condition"
Ghengis Khan supposedly killed 10 million humans and supposedly has more than 16 million male descendants.
A devout Tengrist, he was both curious and tolerant of other's religions.
His followers also thought he had Divine Authority.
Fabulous. The cat's meow. Smart. What else can you want in this life?
Does G. Khan have followers today? Curious.
Yes, although the Soviet Union tried to erase him from history and forbid his mention ( that ALWAYS works with humans/s) now That the USSR is "gone",
modern Mongolia is celebrating Khan and trying to cash in on him by trying to copyright his name.
A recently discovered tomb is a controversy as to whether it is Khans or not.
Scholars remain skeptical.
The GK Memorial is still under construction but open for tourist traffic in Mongolia.
Correction, as I read some more.
Genghis Khan and his armies are "credited" with destroying 40 million humans across Asia and Eastern Europe.
Well done. Interesting. And what an impressive man Khan was. Correction noted, too!
There was a show on PBS a few nights ago about the search for his tomb on a remote mountain in Mongolia. The government let these people into the area but they were not permitted to dig so they had to resort to ground-penetrating radar and other technology to find a likely spot. In the end, they seem to have found the remains of a building foundation and the probable ground disturbance of his tomb. I was not aware that anything had been excavated.
Your argument incorrectly assumes that all forms of communism are authoritarian but that is very incorrect. Communism is an economic idea of shared assets and group control. It does not in any way mandate an authoritarian government or a dictator like many believe/assume. The idea of authoritarian communism is oxymoronic because the very concept of communism is rule by a group and not a violent dictator.
East Germany and North Korea both claims/ed to be democratic republics so should we likewise declare that since they are failed totalitarian states that all forms of democratic rule and all republics are intolerable and do not respect human rights?
Look at the video and then read the comments.
Seems uncertain that anyone else would have "earned" such a funeral, but it isn't where popular opinion would have Khan buried. ( He wanted to be buried in those mountains)
Then again, that is what he wished for. An unmarked grave that would be impossible to find.
What are the odds that a modern road/bridge would be plotted directly over this old tomb 1.000 years later??
Very unlikely. He assumed that his armies had used the obvious mountain passes in their warfare, so a mountain was remote and unlikely to be found. Weren't many members of the burial party killed later as a way to keep the grave's location a secret?
I was wrong. It was on NatGeo and not PBS,
Genghis Khan raped countless women, which is why he has so many descendants.
I wonder if the bridge/road will be modified or abandoned.
Years ago in Miami there was a big to do about a 2,000 year old Indian village that derailed a huge canal/bay front hotel project.
The state stepped in and bought the property and they are still excavating a site that's between 2500 and 2000 years old.
The Miami Circle?
God must have the most miserable existence possible. If you believe in it, I suppose you must believe that it is keeping track of the sex lives of billions of people at once, while welcoming souls to heaven at a rate of several per second, terminating random pregnancies at about the same rate, and judging/condemning sinners to hell at about the same rate. And it's been doing it ever since Adam and Eve, 24/7. Poor thing.
I think it is beyond human understanding one way or the other.
The nonexistence of something is fully within the understanding of all humans.
I am referring to the nature of, or capabilities of, or the experiences of God.
Human beings can only think within the framework of being human so we ascribe to God human characteristics. That is almost certainly a 100% wrong way to look at it, but it is all we can do.
Humans are ultimately made of the same stuff as rodents and microbes (not to mention every other thing that exists in physical reality). It's all composed of atoms, which are over 99.99999% empty space. There are lots of things about reality that are difficult to wrap your head around. Boiling it all down to a bearded old man in the sky that was dreamed up by humans who didn't even know what the sun is, or what causes babies to appear inside women, or why you should wash your hands - is sheer lunacy. Time to evolve.
There is no doubt that human religions are cultural expressions of a need to connect with the "beyond" . There has been a "religious" or spiritual impulse since the dawn of time and even with the rising of advanced science and advanced technology the impulse persists. By no means is it all connected to primitive beliefs.
By no means is it all connected to primitive beliefs.
That is precisely what organized religion is. A primitive connection to a long-standing mystery. Its dogma is even considered immutable by the adherents. Attempts to challenge it can and has resulted in death and persecution for centuries.
Calling God a “bearded old man in the sky” reveals you as the one with ignorant beliefs.
Oh? Is he sporting a clean shave now?
God is Spirit, not some “bearded old man”
and He certainly doesn’t live in the sky
Is ‘He’ involved in everyone’s life? Or is it just the ones who delude themselves enough to think that ‘He’ is paying individual attention to them?
Since god(s) was created by humans it doesn't seem that it should be beyond understanding
The idea of God was the first Chuck Norris. The following are all Chuck Norris jokes off joke websites with only the name changed.
God's tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
God counted to infinity... Twice.
Guns don't kill people. God kills People.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals God allows to live.
Crop circles are God's way of telling the world that sometimes corn needs to lie down.
God once challenged Lance Armstrong in a "Who has more testicles?" contest. God won by 5. (Billions of people believe it's a "He", kind of goes without saying that "He" is going to have testicles...)
God lost his virginity before his dad did.
In an average living room there are 1,242 objects God could use to kill you, including the room itself.
God can hit you so hard that he can actually alter your DNA. Decades from now your descendants will occasionally clutch their heads and yell "What The Hell was That?".
In the Bible, Jesus turned water into wine. But then God turned that wine into beer.
God is not hung like a horse. Horses are hung like God.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool God once and he will roundhouse kick you in the face.
God doesn't churn butter. He roundhouse kicks the cows and the butter comes straight out.
God can win a game of Connect Four in only three moves.
The God humans worship is their idealized version of themselves. It's rather hilarious when you actually stop to think about it.
That's nice. Prove it!
How do you know this with any certainty?
Claiming there's a god without evidence is an ignorant belief too!
That is my understanding of what God is supposed to be, a spiritual entity. Why do Christians ascribe a sexuality to this entity? God could take the form of a female ostrich if it wanted to, or any form at all, no? The whole idea that 'God' needed a female human in order to have a 'son' is utterly ridiculous. Man made God in his own image, obviously.
This is simple skeptic belligerence.
Lennylynx, you make a good point!
It is important to realize structure and form is foundational to understanding new concepts. Thanks for sharing!
No, it's simple logical inquiry and analysis of absurd claims made.
I have noticed that not everybody can deal with logic.
The article asks a question of the room:
Ask yourself this: When someone dies, did God “murder” that person? No.
God is assumed in order to seek answer to this inquiry. "Bearded men and sky" canards are beyond the scope of the article, in my opinion. Be fair-minded; that is, be open to allowing for other members views and not mock them. We can all have some dignity and decency in here, permitting in a belligerent posture as a rarity.
Better gird your loins then because fantasies can be one hell of a ride - lots of twists, turns and loops. Maybe keep some Dramamine handy as well. And be prepared to ride hard and long only to find that you have not actually moved an inch.
Maybe fish, my friend!! (You're exceptional, nevertheless.)
A rather stupid question and one based on the assumption there's a god to begin with.
Could god have prevented someone's death? yes.
Making assumption is not always a good thing.
"Bearded man in the sky" is as valid description of god as any other.
People are entitled to their views. That does not mean their views are free from scrutiny.
I posed a question and a challenge to another. They're perfectly valid ones too, given the statements provided. Why do you have a problem with that? If you think that's "belligerent posturing," then your perception of the discussion is faulty.
As have I. It seems logic is a foreign concept to some.
Here it comes again! The question is obviously meant for people who have a God point of view. Atheists lack a believe. So why comment on God? Just an opportunity to badger.
Could god have prevented someone's death? yes.
Which god? You lack a believe in God/gods. Reason dictates that this question has no relevance, for you. Gods are impotent in your frame of reference.
Intellectual discipline has standards, order, and conscious control. Here, these three become suspect when you non-critically take imagery of bearded men living in the sky from paintings you and others have seen or heard about out of proportion. It's time-worn imagery in your hands. Serious men and women have known since the dawn of the space-age that God is not in the earthly sky, and since the beginning that God is Spirit not inclined to aging!
Here it comes again. Persistent badgering. There is no "challenge" in this line form of an attack. For the original question,. . .
Ask yourself this: When someone dies, did God “murder” that person? No.
. . . is swallowed up in the morass of negative expressions about atheistic lack of believe.
Many are immune to logic because it does not give people the warm fuzzies of belief and emotions. This is the very reason that it should be taught as part of the k-12 curriculum.
And yet you continue to hold on to libertarian economic ideas............
This is another argument from ignorance logical fallacy.
You have managed to hit the nail squarely on the head!
Well put and so true, especially here.
Indeed! According to those with a "lack of belief" God can not proverbially, 'walk and chew gun at the same time.' Too complicated! . . .That is, if God existed, God could not. . .do. . .those two things. 'Saving' children or 'murdering' children preposterous! /s
It is -"all slam all the time" - from our resident "lack of beliefers"!
Where do you get this nonsense? Who has argued that the biblical God is simple minded?
A non-existent God.. . simple-minded? /s "All slam all the time"
It seems to be what some live for.
It is really funny when they slam under the guise of "I want to learn!"
But usually it all boils down to 3 little words:
"Prove God exists".
As if we owe them an explanation.
Not only is there no slam in my comment, it was a question about what you wrote. Your comment implied that someone has suggested the biblical God is simple minded. I asked you who has done that.
Is that really such a difficult question?
Who has suggested that the biblical God is simple-minded? Or did you just make this up?
Two
Three, four, five six?
[deleted]
I guess my other statement was correct - I could go on & on, but it would never be enough for you to analyze yourself & your posts. You are no longer worth the time or energy to discuss any topic with.
So, same old same old?
You wrote "simple-minded" not me. Explain why and how you think a non-existent God can be so. And, in the process, try not to tie-up the discussion. You can always just let your silence speak volumes, you know.
Plenty of Christians think that their god is corporeal and sits on a throne.
It is the case of 'talking' at you not - never - to you.
So we have to entertain every "confession" no matter how bizarre? Just for. . .giggles (Hi Trout! Smile!), just how old would a flesh and bone God need to be in human years? Remember, this is just for fun. It's hypothetical.
But
If you're going to expect TiG to support this position, I assume you can produce quotes that demonstrate that it's a position he actually holds, yes?
Or are you going to, as per usual, get angry at someone for something they've never said, insist that they support a statement they've never made and get angry when they don't, and accuse them of "slamming" and tying up the discussion when called on it?
What makes you qualified to determine which religious sects' views are bizarre and which are accurate? Their views are as valid to them as yours are to you - and all of them are bizarre to me, since I view the bible as nothing but a bunch of ancient stories, no different than the Iliad or any other ancient book of mythology. But yes, if we entertain one sect's views, we have to entertain them all. And some of them are very entertaining indeed!
Blatant intellectual dishonesty.
I did not deem the God of the Bible simple-minded; clearly I disagree with that characterization.
I asked where you got the idea that someone did so.
Sickening is it not?
Few things worse on a discussion forum than malicious intellectual dishonesty. Pure Valerie-esque.
Yes, she was a good one for insisting people said things they never said, too.
Really? Nevermind, feeling around for phantom emotional connections, point blank:
That's rich.
The only person I see doing any "slamming" here is you, with your attacks on nonbelievers and accusations you can't back up. That's not very Christ-like behavior, CB.
Come to think of it, she liked to carry her unfounded accusations from one article to another, too. Pretty much anywhere on the Vine she was still allowed to go.
Blatant intellectual dishonesty? Where do you extract the words "simple-minded" in the above?
Besides the fact you are deflecting this discussion (its a pet peeve of yours); my comment has to do with something episste wrote, though you may be hard-pressed to place the train of thought when you interjected yourself! it began @4.1.8. FYI.
As I stated, "all slam all the time" !
Now we have feigned obtuseness. One intellectually dishonest tactic after another.
And what makes you qualified to "lack a belief" in God, but persist in speaking out about God as though a non-existent God can do anything to open or blast refrigerator doors?
"All slam all the time"!
Explain that logic. Help your peers out. Please proceed, Sandy. . . .
Did she claim God is simple-minded? Which, BTW, would be pretty much synonymous with being "unable to walk and chew gum at the same time". Good grief, man, everyone who responds to you doesn't have to use your words verbatim when stating their understanding of your position. Although TBH, you often seem to take exception to that, too.
Her membership in this forum.
It is not your place to tell others what they may and may not discuss.
Nope. Not buying any of it. Who wrote the words,
Sandy, be honest and to the point. Then, we can move on.
Then you and others should have no problem with, "All slam all the time"!
Back to the topic: What about the dead children? What in nature could have been done to save them?
For as you and I both know, a non-existent God has. . . nothing approximating hands!
Given your behavior on this thread, it is a bit ridiculous for you to tell anyone else to be honest.
Where is your quote of TiG accusing God of being simple-minded? If you make accusations, you should back them up.
I have problems with lies and false accusations.
Here are the words I wrote:
Despicable behavior Cal.
I have 'the goods':
So, your god inflicted pain, suffering and tears on all of humanity and animalkind - inflicted disease on animals and plants - because 2 people it created did exactly what it knew they would do, and therefore it needed a human sacrifice before it would stop committing mass murder and ordering its followers to murder entire villages and rape and enslave the young virgin girls. Then it committed both murder and suicide in a single act so it would forgive us for being what it made us to be, and to convince itself to stop torturing us quite so much. Then it still makes us suffer pain and tears, until we die and it can torture us for eternity if we haven't groveled properly. But we have a get out of hell free card if we worship our abuser! O super cosmic joy!
If I lost a child and some asshole dared to tell me it was better off dead, I'd punch them in the face. Why don't we all just kill ourselves, or refuse to procreate, if death is so wonderful and some evil god is punishing us all throughout our lives? The Cosmic Abuser.
You voted it up, too! Take ownership of " All slam all the time" !
Where is your quote of TiG calling God simple-minded?
I give you credit for at least trying. I gave it up as a lost cause.
Same old tired arguments, but they all boil down to really nothing more than "Prove it" in the end.
No matter how the arguments go or the words are parsed.
You 'translated' my statement into the words, 'simple-minded.' Own it. You hopped into a contextual discussion not directed at you (and is fighting to own it - so own it then).
My fault, if I had a hand in this, is I was running out the door for a quickie appointment and remembered a near to but down the list comment.
Anyway, you need to own your mess. Your meaning is clear everywhere and throughout a myriad of threads. You have a 'lack of belief in God, and God does not exist in your worldview. The conclusion is God does not need a faux defense/der. It's laughable, if it was not so time-consuming serious! A "lack of beliefer" argues positively for a non-existent God that is WHAT EXACTLY?
Oh and you voted up Katrix @1.1.6 too!
And you and me, we are arguing 'air' over this.
This deflection for me ends here and now. Walking away. . . .
You keep making that same old tired claim and never supplying any actual evidence. What rationalists have said many, many times is that since belief is non-rational, it is "unfalsifiable" (a philosophical term meaning it cannot be tested for truth or falseness) so the existence or non-existence of a god, many gods or any god cannot be determined, since by definition there can be no evidence given either way. I have a feeling you're still going to twist all that right back to this same false claim that we demand believers to prove god exists but it is nevertheless herewith refuted once again.
And he did not use them to describe God.
That's why you can't produce a quote.
This is where this term entered the discussion. My baddddddd! Believe it or not, I have been to an appointment and back since then. Color me, the tinniest bit sorry for giving you the wrong comment to gaze upon.
For the sake of argument, here is my entire message in context:
According to those with a "lack of belief" God can not proverbially, 'walk and chew gun at the same time.' Too complicated! . . .That is, if God existed, God could not. . .do. . .those two things. 'Saving' children or 'murdering' children preposterous! /s
Er,' note the <sarc> tag. If it signifies anything of importance to you.
Hopefully at least that statement will be truthful.
What about the dead children?! What in nature could have been done to save them?
For as you and I both know, a non-existent God has. . . nothing approximating hands!
It is an old defense attorney trick : Try to bury focus on the micro instead of the macro . Here it goes again: taking shape as a faux argument over who said what in what way signifying what-which to whom . Believe me, I see it!
If John Russell will indulge this:
May I, Atheist?
What if you are looking into the wrong sphere of existence for God? For instance: Where are you 'searching' for God?
Ample evidence here for anyone actually willing to look at it. Look at it or not. Nothing to me, just typical.
what a nice dodge and lack of producing that "ample evidence" ... what next ? the tired old "well even if i gave you the evidence it wouldn't be enough for you anyway" argument ?
I have explained it to you before, and I suppose I'll probably have to again in the future.
I DON'T CARE what you believe in. I DON'T CARE if you believe in God.
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I KNOW that there is a God, and that is enough FOR ME.
If you choose not to believe, more power to ya!
Seems like people on here are trying like HELL to convince me that there is no God, or no logical reason to believe in Him.
While I try to convince no one and let people alone with their own beliefs.
Why don't you and some of your friends TRY that just for a change of pace?
I'm not searching at all. It would be pointless, even if I were a believer.
Well, that is one type of attitude to hold!
It is the concept of faith that gets on their last nerve. One atheist on this thread actually spelled in out in an on article-thread to me here on NT. He called faith, 'the thing' that is resilient and won't die out which holds believers together and for which logic and critical thinking is having a hell of time getting rid of, or words to that effect. Maybe, one evening I will dredge up the discussion and repost it.
What? You mean logic and reasoning?
What does that have to do with anything? If anything, atheists are better qualified to answer, as we do not have or allow belief or religion to cloud our reasoning or judgement or make excuses for god.
Why not? This is a public discussion forum.
You're being obtuse again. It doesn't really mater which god. But I think everyone knows the focus is on the Abrahamistic god.
it doesn't matter how one imagines god to appear, whether it's as a spirit or bearded man. it's the characteristics attributed to god that matters.
There's no attack, except in your own mind. So stop trying to play the victim here!
Which was countered with a question: "Could god have prevented someone's death? yes."
Belief or the lack thereof has nothing to do with it. It's about what god is capable of doing.
Who said that exactly? or are you just making things up as you go along now?
Now you're on the verge of a persecution complex.
Not "confession," but assertion. Many will assert god is a spirit or a bearded man on a throne, ect.. But such assertions are all irrelevant as they cannot be proven, nor has anyone proven there's a god to begin with.
Oh irony.
Such as? be specific.
No, you only BELIEVE there's a god.
I doubt anyone is trying to do that.
Belief by its nature is illogical.
"Prove it" is the logical response to any assertion or claim made, especially when there is a lack of evidence to support it.
What do YOU "Believe" ?
But try to NOT use the words "Believe" or "Think" in your response, as "Think" is a personal "Belief", especially when "I" is used ! (Smiley Face)
I generally don't go by belief.
So you ask me what I believe, but then stipulate I cannot say what I believe? And "think" and "belief" are not interchangeable terms.
I find it illogical, but it certainly doesn't get on my last nerve. Hell, I arranged for a local church to send someone out today to give my Mom communion, since I can't get her interested in going to a church service these days. If she did want to go, I'd make sure it happened even if I had to take her myself.
YOU....do it to everyone else when YOU try to show a "False" !
EXAMPLE:
And this is YOUR quote in comment 5.1.82:
"No, you only BELIEVE there's a god."
No, I challenge claims made or show the logical fallacy behind those claims.
How can you possibly "KNOW" there's a god? It is impossible to know there's a god, unless you have objective, empirical evidence to back it up. Otherwise, "knowing" there's a god is just an emotionally based assertion and you really only BELIEVE there's a god.
What were you 'saying' about being obtuse?
What God?! You lack a belief in God. (NO GOD!) You're being obtuse again. You might want to apologize for feigning an interest in a make-believe God, thus wasting readers' time.
I said you are being obtuse, and your comments reflect that. You also make an assumption (and play a victim at the same time) when you claim atheists are here to simply "badger." Your statement also implies atheists should not and/or are unqualified to comment on god. Neither have you explained why, as I previously asked. So my follow up question is valid and my following statement is factual.
It's already been explained which god and has also been explained that which god is really just irrelevant.
Again, so what?
Speak for yourself. You seem to think a belief in a god is necessary to analyze and engage in a discussion.
Please buy a dictionary, for crying out loud!
Have you ever witnessed someone speak of a fictional character like, maybe, Darth Vader, Santa Claus, Voldemort? Do you think the speaker must actually believe the named character exists to speak of it?
Your closing sentence is pure irony.
That was YOUR quote, so going based on that....you should be able to explain YOURSELF without using "Believe".
Isn't being "Perfect" fun ?
You're just being obtuse too—and ambiguous.
Irrelevant and proven to who again?
nor has anyone proven there's a god to begin with.
What? Do you now wish to allow belief or religion to cloud your reasoning or judgement?
I am aware it's my quote. Belief is just an emotional response or wishful thinking. It lacks any facts or evidence. Therefore, it's illogical. Or, at the very least, irrational. That is also why I said you only believe there is a god as opposed to knowing there's one.
I manage.
Now it seems you're just playing Pee Wee Herman's "I know you are but what am I?"
Are you suggesting god' description is somehow relevant? And god is not proven at all, as in there is no evidence or proof of a god.
You should ask yourself that question.
Soooooo….. based on YOUR comment AGAIN.....you can't do it with a straight face !
Nevermind.
Read it for yourself:
It's already been explained which god and has also been explained that which god is really just irrelevant.
Which God? The irrelevant God.
Obtuse.
What do you mean? I did explain myself, including my comment.
So you really want to play games, eh?
Every believer thinks that the god/s of everyone else are irrelevant. This is an example of a No True Scotsman fallacy. Why do you believe in your god and not Horus, Thor, Vishnu, or Posiden?
I was not applying any purity test, epistte. But, you know what? You are welcome to persist in your own meaning for my comment—just ignore me.
On a separate note, just how much do you know about Harold Camping anyway? Since you take the time to approve of one aspect of his life? Do you approve of the whole man or just the portion where he confirms some bias of yours? I'm just asking. So hold your rocks!
Harold Camping, never one to pull punches on his nightly call in hour on Family Radio would certainly have applied his cojones to an atheist. Bet!
Happy trails to you,♪ until we meet again!♫
You were previously saying that people who go to church are better Christians than those who are only social Christians. The problem with that idea is that social Christians can treat others as Jesus taught just as well or even better than those people who spend 2 or more hours a week the pews.
Harold Camping was a loon.
The guy who made predictions about the end of the world and was wrong every time. Sounds as crazy as they come.
whoa Whoa WHOA WHOA ! HOLD UP ! who in the world is talking about belief ?! this is the statement i responded to:
now provide that "ample evidence" for everyone so we can all look at it. You stated there is "ample evidence" so provide it. I'm not talking about your belief - i'm talking about this "ample evidence" that you have still failed to produce, and instead went on an emotional tirade about beliefs in God. So let's see it - provide the "ample evidence" for everyone - we are all watching and waiting.
Another minister who was a con-man to his very core.
IMPASSE
I was referring to the ones insisting on arguing all the time because they don't believe in God. If you can't see that here, then that's all on you.
No, I KNOW there is a God. Please don't presume to tell me what I know.
Sue me.
So in other words, you don't have any evidence or proof. Got it.
Again, how do you know exactly?
Spare me the juvenile retort. It only affirms what I said.
this seems odd... i was told there is "ample evidence" for everyone to see.. yet nothing is provided to back up such an assertion... i wish i could say i was surprised
Never claimed to have any proof. GLAD to hear you FINALLY got it.
I know, I have seen Him work in my life. I don't care if you don't believe me or not. Makes absolutely no difference to me.
I calls 'em like I see 'em!
Which only further begs the question: how do you KNOW? Knowledge of something usually requires some kind of fact or evidence.
Sounds like you only convinced yourself, and is still just belief.
That's nice, because I don't.
As do I. And belief is still illogical and little more than wishful thinking.
That's because you don't have enough faith (or so I'm told). Don't you know: "ample evidence" only becomes apparent when you believe enough.
I'm sure not!
that's it ! i just have to only convince myself to believe and i'll believe and it'll be true ! gee ! why didn't i see that before ? who needs any factual evidence or logic ?! i'll start looking for " proof " all around me and just believe it to be ample evidence !!! then i'll totally believe it since i've seen the " proof " i've already convinced myself to believe in, before seeing it !! all i have to do is just believe ! ( is this where i start clapping or does that only apply to TinkerBell ? )
it's the same old song and dance , along with blaming everyone else . it's completely everyone else who is mean and nasty and "illogical" since they just don't believe !!
I told you already. I have seen Him work in my life. Pay attention.
Didn't have to convince myself, and damn sure ain't trying to convince you or anyone else.
Not my circus, not my monkey. What you believe isn't my concern.
So don't do it then. I am sure you'll be happier that way.
Is MY belief somehow a threat to you?
What POSSIBLE difference can it make to you what I believe?
Here is a way to avoid this issue.
If you do not have evidence that can be evaluated by a third party then don't claim you have evidence. Claim instead that you are personally convinced based on your own experiences. And, if you are like every other believer I have encountered, you will likely go one step further and state that these experiences are private so you will not disclose any details.
That saves a lot of typing and gnashing of teeth and gets everyone to the same result. That same result is, of course, no net exchange of information.
lol, Tex on my computer right under your words above is a large white blank area, like a blank canvas. ... it caught my attention and I thought it was so fitting, I'd mention it.
Issue? What issue?
I have no issue.
How many times can I say that I don't care what others believe?
I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind.
Believe whatever you want.
As will I.
Nevermind
Subjective and anecdotal. Am I supposed to take your word for it? You make a bold claim, but offer nothing to back it up.
Sure sounds like you already did.
I've made no mention of my beliefs.
I don't and I am.
I don't care what you believe. You made a claim of certainty and I simply asked you back it up.
Gladly!!
NOW you might be "getting it"!
I am not replying to Gordy.
An Impasse was called. This thread should have ended and a new one started. Please remember this for the next time.
I'm sure God isn't involved in everyone's everyday life, Good and bad things happen to both good and bad people.
Yeah, I got to agree with you guys.
I'm sure God isn't involved in everyone's everyday life
Then what good is it? If it can’t share its time with you in the here and now, why would it be any more feasible for it to do so in the hereafter? There are billions of people in the here and now, but there must be trillions of souls in the hereafter. Why waste a single second on a notion that has zero probability of being true? Why put money in a collection plate? Why get up early and go to church? It’s a a waste of time if it’s done with the hope of getting noticed by an unobservant and indifferent entity.
I'm up no later than 7:00 AM every morning so it's not like I'm depriving myself of sleep as the morning service starts at 10:45. I don't go to church to get noticed by God, I go because I enjoy it and I like the fellowship
Why put money in a collection plate?
The church needs money to pay its bills, churches aren't exempt from paying utilities and paying for insurance. My church has a food pantry, the food we give out to those in need has to be bought by the church. We also have several other ministries to help people pay their bills. Before you ask NO, they don't have to attend services at our church to receive help, in fact very few do
BTW, God shares his time and blesses me in many ways, no reason to explain how you would dismiss it anyway.
God is not responsible for the 'blessings' in your life, MM, the Democratic party is. The Democratic party is the only reason we all aren't all slaves. Democratic party values are Christian values. The Republicans are the epitome of the money changers Jesus threw out of the temple.
So church is just a club thingy. I think we’ve made real progress today. A breakthrough may be just around the corner for you.
Jesus was an absolute socialist and a total bleeding heart liberal. You should read the bible sometime.
The GOP opposes him and biblical Jesus. Apparently, it is the name that they find offensive.
May I please have the title of the revisionist history book you got that from?
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pure rubbish, as usual.
Whoa, episette. Just look at the fur flying from the usual suspects above. Well done and spot on.
I seem to have that effect on some people. It is an eternal gift from Her Noodliness, FSM.
R'amen.
Well, it's damn sure not the Republican party either. But apart from a tiny fragment of Christians, the term "Christian values" is an oxymoron.
Excerpts from the Republican bible:
"Let the stranger be abused."
"Cursed are the meek, just rolleth over them."
"Ridicule the merciful....for they be wimps."
"Nuke the peacemakers for they reduceth military profiteering."
"Persecute the righteous, for they maketh us look bad."
Write whatever nonsense you want--you're just making shit up anyways.
The Deist view of god. That was the belief of many Enlightenment men and women, including many of our founders. Later, I believe it was Nietzsche who used the phrase "god is dead" to describe it. Once creation was initiated the Creator left it to itself and became disinterested in how it went from there. Hardly the view of most believers even now but I think it was a way for the rationalists of the Enlightenment to avoid being burned at the stake for having become at least agnostic and probably atheistic in some cases.
I will add: the reason there is so much historical input on the essence of God is due to God not coming out into the light of day. However, the long history has continuously borne this tension of people - rightly and wrongly - factoring a spiritual life as a part of their reality. Just look through the writings of all the great thinkers for and against God-think! We even have cross-over writers—in both directions. So the basis question here is two-fold:
For the atheists and agnostics: Why won't God materialize?
That is as fundamentally wrong as ‘why won’t the tooth fairy materialize?’ Atheists don’t ask themselves that question.
Because of a, 'lack of belief," no? Are you classified as a 100% "gnostic-atheist"? Or, an "agnostic-atheist"?
If you are an atheist who does not imagine God:
Why won’t the tooth fairy materialize? I venture because a family relative or several and local friends do instead? I'm just saying.
... what, exactly?
Happy Trails to you, until we meet again!