How did you reach your conclusion

If your god allows them die when he can prevent it, then it becomes his responsibility.

No, it is not. Ability does not denote responsibility. A common fallacy. You are not responsible for your brother's welfare. You are responsible for your own, and anything else is charity. You also cannot force people to accept charity. Defeats the purpose.

At the end of the day, your god allegedly has the power to end all suffering here and now....in an instant. Failure to do that leads to the thoughts of Epicurus.

Free will. God is not a spiritual rapist. Do you want God to strip away your ability to hate Him and force you to worship Him? Again, Ability does not demand action.

Also, on a side note, do we know what God's goals are? God could make things worse you know if He so chose. He has the ability, and really, we'd deserve it... wouldn't we?

Oh and before I forget... why do you demand the salvation from something you do not believe in? Why are you not making the same demands of Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. If they are equivalent in your mind, why shed extra scorn on God?

I have spent many years working voluntarily with the starving in Somalia, Darfur, Mozambique and Ethiopia.

Taking your word for it, good for you! You're living far beyond most people. You must have a calling to do that somehow.

On the other hand, why aren't you doing more? Don't you have the ability? At what point does your own life take precedence over the death and suffering of others? Now mind you, I'm just tweaking you on this last bit to show that maybe you're being a tad skewed in your view of something you don't believe exists. It's good you're doing so much.
 
☭proletarian☭;1823868 said:
Therefore it is independent of my experience for it to exist.

You're still assuming it exists at all.

I suggest looking up logical positivism (the foundation of my philosophical perspective)
Interesting. Hemingway must have been a Positivist. I don't agree with much of it as a philosophy, but certain aspects have their merits.
 
Never read Hemingway, so I wouldn't know his perspective.
 
☭proletarian☭;1823925 said:
Yes--tuning an engine after a modification causes it to overheat is an exercise in morality

:eusa_eh:
:lol:

This, in my opinion, is how ethics/moral laws are formed. First, consequences due to mistakes or caluclated results from others learned. Then it is codified as advice/warnings for those that follow in the "teachers/thinkers" footsteps.

Ethics are formed out of mutual desire. We don't want to be raped, so we agree not to rape eahother and to act together against anyone who rapes any of us. Ethics (can) become laws and give rise to complex legal systems.

Where do you think these moral laws/ethics come from. Intuition is great, but intuition is based on either past experience or subconscious calculations related to the subject.

see: the moral instinct; evolutionary altruism; social contract

If Wiki is correct about "The moral instinct", then we are referencing using intuition based on ignorance of the subject matter at hand. As I have stated before,sometimes we can come to the right conclusion, sometimes we can come to the wrong conclusion. What do you call it when you intuit the wrong action? The immoral instinct?

Evolutionary altruism--This is basicly learned morality due to nature. There is still no conflict to what I said.

Social Contract--First, understand, this does not contain all the moral laws that one may prescribe to. Second, this only exists due to the agreement of what laws are necessary to form a society by the members of the society. The social contract is more or less an Intersection of the varying ethical codes/moral systems of the members that abide by it. It is not the basis of ethics or how moral laws come about, but is the result of moral reasoning from disparate parties that wish to build a secular society.
 
☭proletarian☭;1823969 said:
Never read Hemingway, so I wouldn't know his perspective.
His belief was you couldn't write about anything you didn't personally experience.

I believe that's a load of bollocks. You can write about anything. You just write BEST about what you know and have experienced.
 
That's not God's fault.
If your god allows them die when he can prevent it, then it becomes his responsibility.

He has already paid for their lives in His blood and ensured that all mankind will rise from the grave. Can He do anything more to provide immortality for man than He already has done???

Or if you must blame someone, it's Man's fault.
At the end of the day, your god allegedly has the power to end all suffering here and now....in an instant. Failure to do that leads to the thoughts of Epicurus.

Well, here is an interesting question: Is all suffering bad? Another one: Can God end your suffering against your will? If He provides a way for the suffering to end, and you dont take advantage of it, who's fault is that?


Why aren't YOU giving them clean water?
I have spent many years working voluntarily with the starving in Somalia, Darfur, Mozambique and Ethiopia.

And so you blame God for their suffering rather than see the various other and much more obvious reasons? God has given them immortality and provided a way for thei suffering to be comforted and eased. How is telling people to ignore that going to help them recieve those gifts?
 
That your God/faith or lack thereof was correct?

I am agnostic, throughout the ages mankind has had the need to create the idea of a God or Gods to help explain those things that he didnt undestand and to deal with the fear of death, there have been many Gods but believers seem to think that their particular God is the correct one, it all seems as childish as believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy to me.
 
Perhaps Santa is a better analogy than people realize. Who know who Saint Nikolas was, that he existed, and that he inspired people. We know that the current image of him was invented by Coca-Cola to sell soda and reindeer don't fly.

Perheps the evolution of the Santa myth isn't so far off from the story of religions- hell, it's even used as a means of social control, as children are told this all-seeing-eye rewards them if they're good but not if they misbehave. It resembles some older Jerwish/Christian traditions which had no hell, but rather taught that bad people got nothing- the oblivion of the Outer Darkness.
 
☭proletarian☭;1824447 said:
Perhaps Santa is a better analogy than people realize. Who know who Saint Nikolas was, that he existed, and that he inspired people. We know that the current image of him was invented by Coca-Cola to sell soda and reindeer don't fly.

Perheps the evolution of the Santa myth isn't so far off from the story of religions- hell, it's even used as a means of social control, as children are told this all-seeing-eye rewards them if they're good but not if they misbehave. It resembles some older Jerwish/Christian traditions which had no hell, but rather taught that bad people got nothing- the oblivion of the Outer Darkness.
128743500936235117.jpg


That's a mighty big stretch there.
 
☭proletarian☭;1822861 said:
You know.......life CAN generate spontaneously on this planet. Scientists have even proven that by a certain chemical soup of things already here, when combined and heat and electricity are applied, they generate DNA and RNA strands.

Not quite. They created amino acids. Big difference.[
I mean..........the Hubble telescope didn't exist when Copernicus and Galileo were trying to convince the church that the Earth revolves around the Sun. We now know better.

You don't need Hubble to know that's the case; you can discern that by watching the sky and measuring shadows- if you're good enough with mathematics.

Amino acids are the building blocks of life.

And, if we didn't have Hubble, how would we know about the galactic alignment in 3 years?

You can't measure starlight shadows dude......
 
☭proletarian☭;1824447 said:
Perhaps Santa is a better analogy than people realize. Who know who Saint Nikolas was, that he existed, and that he inspired people. We know that the current image of him was invented by Coca-Cola to sell soda and reindeer don't fly.

Perheps the evolution of the Santa myth isn't so far off from the story of religions- hell, it's even used as a means of social control, as children are told this all-seeing-eye rewards them if they're good but not if they misbehave. It resembles some older Jerwish/Christian traditions which had no hell, but rather taught that bad people got nothing- the oblivion of the Outer Darkness.
128743500936235117.jpg


That's a mighty big stretch there.



Actually, it is not much of a stretch as you may think.

By the way, there was a Saint Nicholas. The mythological Santa Claus is taken from this historical personage and given a fantastical Quality(and weight, I might add) such as flying reindeers, superb breaking and entering abilities and plus that all seeing eye Prolatarian is talking about.


It is quite literally smoking gun to how theologians and believers over embellish the history of certain figures they find important to their faith.. In short, it called BEATRIFICATION and the Catholic church makes no secret about this.

Not a stretch at all--more like a step forward in critical thinking, which is something that should be practiced by all.
 
Last edited:
☭proletarian☭;1824447 said:
Perhaps Santa is a better analogy than people realize. Who know who Saint Nikolas was, that he existed, and that he inspired people. We know that the current image of him was invented by Coca-Cola to sell soda and reindeer don't fly.

Perheps the evolution of the Santa myth isn't so far off from the story of religions- hell, it's even used as a means of social control, as children are told this all-seeing-eye rewards them if they're good but not if they misbehave. It resembles some older Jerwish/Christian traditions which had no hell, but rather taught that bad people got nothing- the oblivion of the Outer Darkness.
128743500936235117.jpg


That's a mighty big stretch there.



Actually, it is not much of a stretch as you may think.

By the way, there was a Saint Nicholas. The mythological Santa Claus is taken from this historical personage and given a fantastical Quality(and weight, I might add) such as flying reindeers, superb breaking and entering abilities and plus that all seeing eye Prolatarian is talking about.


It is quite literally smoking gun to how theologians and believers over embellish the history of certain figures they find important to their faith.. In short, it called BEATRIFICATION and the Catholic church makes no secret about this.

Not a stretch at all--more like a step forward in critical thinking, which is something that should be practiced by all.

Actually, the flying reindeer part came from Siberian shaman who, as part of their rituals, consumed Amantia Muscaria mushrooms, which induced a psychotropic state.

Amantias are also reputed to be the same mushroom that the caterpillar from "Alice in Wonderland" sat upon.
 
☭proletarian☭;1822861 said:
You know.......life CAN generate spontaneously on this planet. Scientists have even proven that by a certain chemical soup of things already here, when combined and heat and electricity are applied, they generate DNA and RNA strands.

Not quite. They created amino acids. Big difference.

Amino acids are the building blocks of life.

And?

Is that your way of recanting?
 
From what I have read through all of these pages, I think some posters are still traveling without an conclusion. some have a conclusion, but they really don't care. Some have decided that science has all the answers, some say science is all wrong. Some believe that religion is where the answers lie. Some say that religion and science exist together to tell us all about creation, life and even God.

Then there are those who have discovered a relationship with God. They believe that in that relationship God will reveal Himself through phases because man cannot contain it all at once.

I believe God does offer a personal relationship. I believe He does reveal Himself to us as we receive His revelation. I believe there will be a time when we will know , but not in this lifetime.

Science does help, but it seems that we all poick and choose what part of science to accept as final fact. Even science has to recant, retest, and form new conclusions.
 
From what I have read through all of these pages, I think some posters are still traveling without an conclusion. some have a conclusion, but they really don't care. Some have decided that science has all the answers, some say science is all wrong. Some believe that religion is where the answers lie. Some say that religion and science exist together to tell us all about creation, life and even God.

Then there are those who have discovered a relationship with God. They believe that in that relationship God will reveal Himself through phases because man cannot contain it all at once.

I believe God does offer a personal relationship. I believe He does reveal Himself to us as we receive His revelation. I believe there will be a time when we will know , but not in this lifetime.

Science does help, but it seems that we all poick and choose what part of science to accept as final fact. Even science has to recant, retest, and form new conclusions.

The problem isn't with science of course--what is is (no matter what your definition of 'is' is). It is our understanding of science that is incomplete or flawed or in error. Around the dawn of the 20th century, some thought the U.S. Patent office should be closed because everything worth inventing had already been invented. And some thought we had uncovered most science that existed. I haven't bothered to look up statistics but I'm guessing that 99% or more of the science we now know has been learned since the dawning of the 20th Century. And no one has any way of knowing, but I would bet a princely sum that we now know only a teeny fraction of all the science there is to know.

It would also be logical that a being who was/is the author of all the substance of science would have the ability to alter science (or anything else) for his/its own purposes.

It is logical to note and understand such scientific principles as we currently have and that would include understanding that combining two or more substances under the right conditions can result in something different than the original elements/compounds were. It is not logical to think that any substance just appeared out of nothingness. Which of course leaves room for a logical conclusion that there is some form of intelligent design behind what we know to exist.
 
Last edited:
I have heard religion described as a language that helps us understand the world and our place in it. Science is another such language. Who is to say which is true and which is not? It is all in how you perceive things.

I will admit though that I am quite skeptical of literal interpretations of religion as "truth" or the idea that any book is the "word of god"....whichever god that might be.

The original purpose of religion was to explain the environment one found ones ass in...

Has that changed? :eusa_think:
 
If you've got cable, and want a really interesting program to watch concerning the Bible, check out a religious channel called "God's Learning Channel", and look for a program called "Hidden in the Hebrew" with Uri Harel.

What he does is goes verse by verse through the OT, reads the Hebrew, then gives you a direct from Hebrew to English translation of the verse, as well as the nuances of what it actually means.

Show has done wonders for me, because now I can see where certain things in Christianity are WAY wrong.

And......to be fair.........some places where Christianity has it absolutely right.


Don't have cable unfortunately :(

Both Testements (and for that matter, the Koran) are very interesting from a historical aspect as many of the stories do contain the seeds of real events. What's especially interesting is common threads found through many religious stories - for example destruction (floods, fires, darkness) and resurrection and messiahs and you can find those common themes in Greek/Roman/Hebrew/Christian mythologies (which is not so surprising because they cover overlapping cultures and geography) but in stories from much further afield such as the Hopi and other South Western tribal stories which sound eerily familiar :)

Hopi legend tells that the current earth is the Fourth World to be inhabited by Tawa's creations. The story essentially states that in each previous world, the people, though originally happy, became disobedient and lived contrary to Tawa's plan; they engaged in sexual promiscuity, fought one another and would not live in harmony. Thus, the most obedient were led (usually by Spider Woman) to the next higher world, with physical changes occurring both in the people in the course of their journey, and in the environment of the next world. In some stories, these former worlds were then destroyed along with their wicked inhabitants, whereas in others the good people were simply led away from the chaos which had been created by their actions.

Considering the DNA of the Original Americans can be traced back to the peoples of Central Asia, as can the peoples of Europe, East Asia and the Pacific it makes sense and fits the history as human kind broke out of Africa and spread across the globe.
 
From what I have read through all of these pages, I think some posters are still traveling without an conclusion. some have a conclusion, but they really don't care. Some have decided that science has all the answers, some say science is all wrong. Some believe that religion is where the answers lie. Some say that religion and science exist together to tell us all about creation, life and even God.

Then there are those who have discovered a relationship with God. They believe that in that relationship God will reveal Himself through phases because man cannot contain it all at once.

I believe God does offer a personal relationship. I believe He does reveal Himself to us as we receive His revelation. I believe there will be a time when we will know , but not in this lifetime.

Science does help, but it seems that we all poick and choose what part of science to accept as final fact. Even science has to recant, retest, and form new conclusions.

The problem isn't with science of course--what is is (no matter what your definition of 'is' is). It is our understanding of science that is incomplete or flawed or in error. Around the dawn of the 20th century, some thought the U.S. Patent office should be closed because everything worth inventing had already been invented. And some thought we had uncovered most science that existed. I haven't bothered to look up statistics but I'm guessing that 99% or more of the science we now know has been learned since the dawning of the 20th Century. And no one has any way of knowing, but I would bet a princely sum that we now know only a teeny fraction of all the science there is to know.

It would also be logical that a being who was/is the author of all the substance of science would have the ability to alter science (or anything else) for his/its own purposes.

It is logical to note and understand such scientific principles as we currently have and that would include understanding that combining two or more substances under the right conditions can result in something different than the original elements/compounds were. It is not logical to think that any substance just appeared out of nothingness. Which of course leaves room for a logical conclusion that there is some form of intelligent design behind what we know to exist.

The problem with science is that the moment we think we figured it all out, we find out that there is yet more.


Ahh yes, there is even Aesthetics in Logic!!
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top