|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
 Posted - 12/14/2011 : 17:31:16
|
|
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2011 : 22:27:43 [Permalink]
|
| Prayer! It works. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
 |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2011 : 07:09:51 [Permalink]
|
| Holy Crap! Now that's a powerful image. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2011 : 08:26:03 [Permalink]
|
| Allah hou akbar... |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 09:31:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Randy
|
I wonder how much of the worlds starvation is a direct result of man's activities? Certainly wars, ethnic cleansing, genocide and waring political factions etc...etc... account for large amounts of the worlds miseries. We have all seen the videos where the warlords or a rival political faction etc... come in and steel all of the UN aid that was shipped in to help these poor starving people and they even kill many of the starving people as they attempt to recover some of the aid. I mean Texas is in the middle of one of the worst droughts in it's recorded history yet no one is starving in Texas. So certainly it is not so black and white that one can just claim that droughts equal starvation by default. As usual, context is key.
See, what many forget, or fail to realize, is that most of the time when you zoom out from the shot of the lone starving African child sitting in a pile of dirt you can then see in the background the militia members from the rival clan who just razed their village, killed all the parents and left the children for dead. Instead, many will zoom the shot in on a lone starving African child, thus removing any context, and in a ignorant appeal for/of emotion they imply that drought and drought alone killed this poor child. The loss of context is irrelevant since the ends have justified the means. With the true context suppressed the individual can now imply responsibility for the starving child against the one who they sought to imply it against from the very beginning and just dame any context that might suggest otherwise.
If a man moves his family to the great northern wilderness of Alaska and plans on riding out the winter in an Army surplus tent with a kerosene heater then who's fault is it when the harsh Alaskan winter arrives and the family freezes to death? Context is crucial here. Just as harsh winters have been occurring in Alaska long before the man and his family arrived so have droughts been occurring in Africa. No new news there. To zoom in on one lone starving child who is sitting in dirt who has just had his village razed, his parents killed and any possessions he may have stolen and imply that drought is the single/main cause for this child's misery is just plan disingenuous. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/16/2011 09:47:04 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 09:31:12 [Permalink]
|
| Sorry. Somehow my reply got posted twice. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/16/2011 09:43:41 |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 10:13:18 [Permalink]
|
Bill
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
Epicurus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 10:45:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
To zoom in on one lone starving child who is sitting in dirt who has just had his village razed, his parents killed and any possessions he may have stolen and imply that drought is the single/main cause for this child's misery is just plan disingenuous. |
Do you think the lone starving child doesn't pray?
I think you've missed the point of the image. Drought? Where'd that come from? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 10:50:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
... Context is crucial here. ...
|
The context of the images and quote is quite clear. Do you intend to address that or continue to validate the chefcrsh quote. Apparently your God is no god or has a truly disturbing set of priorities.
Praise God! Are you ready for some football!  |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 11:58:34 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by chefcrsh |
Well, since I am not God I will not speak for God, but here are some of my thoughts:
| “Is God willing to prevent evil, |
We read that sometimes he is willing and sometimes he is not. It all unfolds according to his purpose.
No, he is able, but sometimes just unwilling.
| Then he is not omnipotent. |
Unwilling does not mean that one is impotent. It just means that one is unwilling.
| Is he able, but not willing? |
He is able but sometimes unwilling.
If you were the creator of the universe and it was all unfolding according to your purpose then you could say that with some credibility. But since you are a mortal man what you see you see with a minute and very limited perspective where as God sees all with an eternal perspective. So it is only in the ignorance of your very limited perspective do you even make this claim. I am going to stick with the one who sees with the perspective of all of eternity on this one.
| Is he both able and willing? |
Again, as I said earlier, he is able and sometimes willing. Sometimes he is not willing but being God and the Creator of all that exists he has that prerogative. Who could ever challenge his authority?
Evil is the absence of good and as we all know all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
| Is he neither able nor willing? |
Again? OK, one more time here. He is able and sometimes he is willing.
Well for starters what else do you call the one who can bring into existence that which did not exist before? When you or Epicurus can perform that task then you will have my attention.
And you act as if we are already at the end of time here. We clearly read in the scriptures that God will triumph over evil and fully remove it at the coming of His kingdom here on earth. You are trying to name winners and losers while the game is still at halftime. But that is what happens when looking at the universe with your extremity limited perspective vs. an eternal perspective.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 12:03:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
[quote]Then whence cometh evil? |
Who's definition of evil are you going to be using here? In the materialistic universe that which is evil is simply in the eye of the beholder. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 12:23:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Who's definition of evil are you going to be using here? In the materialistic universe that which is evil is simply in the eye of the beholder. |
Yup. There's no evidence of anything else, so we get to say what's evil.
Your God is evil, Bill. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 12:39:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Who's definition of evil are you going to be using here? In the materialistic universe that which is evil is simply in the eye of the beholder. |
Yup. There's no evidence of anything else, so we get to say what's evil.
Your God is evil, Bill.
|
Yup. In the materialistic universe where evil is in the eye of the beholder I have no authority to challenge your statement other than by using my own definition of evil. But then again I can call you evil and you have no authority to challenge my conclusion other than using your own definition of evil. In return you call my mother evil and in reply I call your mother evil and around and around we go on the never ending merry-go-round otherwise know as the materialistic universe. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 12:41:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.Yup. There's no evidence of anything else, so we get to say what's evil.
Your God is evil, Bill.
|
If God (it) were to exist it would be every evil, based on the evidence available. "Evil" by ANY definition ever established. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 13:09:45 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by sailingsoul |
| If God (it) were to exist it would be every evil, based on the evidence available. "Evil" by ANY definition ever established. |
If God does exist than by his own authority a single definition(s) of evil can be established. Who can challenge the authority of the one who created all that exists, you?
If this is a materialistic universe then an infinite amount of definitions for evil all carry the same amount of merit, none. Even contradicting definitions have equal merit when all is in the eye of the beholder. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 13:36:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Yup. In the materialistic universe where evil is in the eye of the beholder I have no authority to challenge your statement other than by using my own definition of evil. But then again I can call you evil and you have no authority to challenge my conclusion other than using your own definition of evil. |
Well, I don't know why you'd require an authority for any of this. We have the luxury, as rational beings, of discussing our various definitions of good and evil, and even subjecting them to scientific tests using agreed-upon metrics. We can present arguments and evidence for and against different propositions about which acts are evil or good (or even neutral), and as a society (or even just a neighborhood) decide on standards of behavior, and perhaps even write them into codes of law which are (most importantly) mutable in case we've made a mistake.
Your God gives you none of that, and it results in huge problems. Specifically that your God hasn't told you in detail what is good and what is evil. His plan is opaque, and so you've got an authority to bow down to, but he's left you clueless. This opens the door for self-proclaimed prophets, evangelists and priests to claim that they speak with God's authority when they make their own personal moral pronouncements, and you've got no authority to claim otherwise, because you've given it all up to God. And the Bible is no help, since it was compiled by a bunch of self-proclaimed priests. So unless God instructs you personally in every moral choice you make, Bill, then he's left you without reliable guidance and all your appeals to authority are for naught.
How about this: if you see a man kicking a puppy, what do you do? Maybe God's plan is for the man to kill the puppy because otherwise the puppy would grow up, become rabid and kill the next great messenger of God's Word. Maybe God's plan is for you to stop the man, because the puppy will then grow up to become a loyal and trustworthy protector of the next great messenger of God's Word. You can't say, one way or the other, because you don't know. So do you save the puppy or not?
I'm not actually going to expect a response to that, since you neglected to answer the much easier questions I asked you up-thread.| Even contradicting definitions have equal merit when all is in the eye of the beholder. |
No, that what's true when all you've got is an ultimate authority who doesn't offer moral guidance on every single possible topic. If, on the other hand, one has a society of rational beings who can examine propositions for their merit, then not all propositions will be found equal.| In return you call my mother evil and in reply I call your mother evil and around and around we go on the never ending merry-go-round otherwise know as the materialistic universe. |
Well, I certainly don't know your mother, Bill, so I don't know that I'd call her evil. She did allow you to get sucked up into a stupid death cult, and instilled in you a nearly pathological dependence upon authority, so I might lean towards concluding that she's evil, but I can't be sure yet. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
The Lord works in mysterious ways....
