Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
I try to do good things because it improves the world I live in in some way, which is different than "It makes my life better." I'm not sure how that borrows anything, but I agree, it has nothing to do with atheism. Please provide your path to arrival at this conclusion:
It is because they have to borrow from other worldviews - things like morality and goodness and well, everything for that matter. They are really a lot like leaches aren't they?
Do you do good because if you don't, God will get mad? Potentially punish you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
What I'm saying is that the constructs of matter would not exist without the intelligence behind it to make it possible. God creates the universe, and material bodies evolved through processes to what they are so that your soul could inhabit them as a means of interfacing within this world.
Yes, you're SAYING it. You're not backing it up with anything other than claims that aren't demonstrated. As usual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
? what would be the point in me giving you any useful information and knowledge just for you to turn around and repeat the same things?
Present said useful information and we can discuss it. You've threatened to do so before, then just barf up a similar word salad of what I guess you think sounds super deep and insightful and profound, when really it's just you being self impressed. I once again invite you do showcase this 'useful information and knowledge.' Except you will preface it with "ignore everything that is demonstrable in real life, otherwise you will never believe my blahdiblah." Can you do it without this condition?
Your conscious being is confined to a material body, your brain is a conduit that isolates and conducts the flow of consciousness to isolate your experience through the physical body so what? the second your consciousness leaves the physical body it will be a still born blob,
Yes, agree so far, this is a good start...
it is your soul that animates and powers the body.
Oh no...we're already off the rails. This would require demonstration of the soul. Where is it detectable in the body, like the electricity firing the neurons and various other electro-chemical reactions that we can confirm actually exist and happen in real time?
.we can measure your energetic presence within the body because your soul powers it.
Please define 'energetic presence' in a useful way. If it's measurable, it should be definable. Also, it would need to be independent of the measurable reactions we already know about, right? Otherwise you'd just be adding "the soul powers these reactions" without demonstrating the soul exists.
You can hook up and electrical meter and read electrical signals within any component that conducts and confines electricity because of the presence of electrical current but do we assume that electrical components create electricity?
Yes, we can hook up instruments and measure it...and no, we don't assume the electrical components create electricity, they utilize it. We absolutely CAN, though, generate electricity, you are aware of that, right? Like it's not magic. Can we generate a soul? Why not, do you think? Why doesn't the circuitboard's soul get credit for the electricity? Or the appliance's soul?
But you as the powering energetic force within the body exist independent of that form. Consciousness is not a property of matter, matter is a construct of consciousness.
Please define "you" in this sentence, presuming it's different from your demonstration of the soul. And are you saying matter wouldn't exist at all without our being conscious of it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@SkepticalOne
Things often claimed to be material are contingent upon the immaterial.
Can you provide an example of this?
For me, the world is material. It is made of matter. Ideas might be 'immaterial,' such as an idea about a god, but if I take SkepticalOne's meaning, those ideas can only happen in a human brain, which is, you guessed it, made of matter. Without that matter, there are no ideas. Do I have that right, SkepticalOne?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Are vaccine passports being seriously considered by the U.S. government? Do vaccine passports give the government more control over the lives of individuals?
THe answer to the first one does not appear to be yes. The answer to the second one is no, because the government doesn't control what private businesses do. If I'm a bar owner and I demand proof of vaccination for you to patronize my establishment because I want it to stay open, rather than be subjected to another shutdown, how is that 'the government controlling the lives of individuals' any more than actual passports for travel? I just don't see the nefariousness than it seems some do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
How, though, do you draw the line from "wear a mask until to protect yourself and others" to some plot to oppress people at large? I believe that's the question here. How does that go from where it is today, to "wear this mask forever and now I have personally gained [exactly what?]?" / "so I can control your entire life"? I just don't get the connection, can you illustrate it in some way?
As already mentioned, you're conflating soviet style Socialism with social safety net programs, because many of the loudest voices are doing exactly that. Wanting to make sure that people have access to medical procedures regardless of income status in the wealthiest nation on earth is not going to lead to you having to hang a picture of Joe Biden in your house, like they do in North Korea, right? It's just one example, I want to make sure we're all on the same page as far as terminology goes, and then I'd just like to see how you get from A to B, because maybe I'm missing something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you believe that Trump tried to overstep his authority and use "government control" to accomplish his own desires? Do you believe other Republicans do this too? What would they get out of it?
Please define "own desires" in this context. Do you believe any politician's "own desire" to control the spread of a deadly virus among their constituents, at any level, is akin to their "own desire" to increase their personal / family wealth by, say, bringing the entire presidential retinue exclusively to properties their family owns, repeatedly, for example? Or proposing a global leadership meeting be held at their own personal property? I just want to make sure we're talking apples to apples. I'm sure politicians of every stripe are guilty of pursuing personal agendas, even personal gain, but the everybody does it defense doesn't make whatever 'it' is the right thing to do, we can agree, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Okay, so that's a lot of hand waving, and I already know you don't think evolution is sound. My question is what's the BETTER explanation for it. You didn't answer. If evolution is false, what's the explanation with observable evidence, a condition you demand of evolutionary theory, that explains the mutation and propagation of the various variants of the Covid 19 virus?
Created:
Posted in:
If evolution isn't scientific fact, what's the alternative explanation for the variants over time of the Covid 19 virus? Because fast reproduction, short life cycle bacteria copying itself over and over, with some slight change every time, until one such change becomes beneficial to reproduction and survival, then that change becomes dominant, seems like exactly how science says evolution works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Materialism and atheism are just one of those options whether they are believed to be legit options or not, it's not a default position.
You keep saying this as if that makes it so. Let me help.
Do we have material in the universe, that we can touch and measure and test and experiment with? The answer of course is clearly yes. There is literally no cogent argument against this. Anything else adds something to the mix, and since there's no dispute about the existence of matter, it's the added something that requires demonstration. You're adding quite a bit and not doing the work required to validate it. It's why your arguments are so poor.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? This goes to your atheism question.
Correlation =/= causation, partner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sorry, didn't realize this was a closed subject. GIven this:
The indication that the universe is a product of intelligence is unavoidable,
It should be rather easy to provide evidence, no? Not "well look at it!" either, that's not evidence.
To hold the position that the universe exists without a Creator, is to accept that intelligent processes occur all on their own and inanimate forces can produce productions of awareness, without thought or mind. You need to support those assertions, not accept them and then turn around and claim there's no evidence to show that they are. Then you expect us to do all the work while you sit back and do nothing.
I hold the position that there's no evidence of a creator, not that the universe exists without one. Just that there's no evidence in that direction. I don't accept that processes are inherently intelligent, and I make no claims that inanimate forces can product productions of awareness (???). I've made no assertions at all. You have to do the work because you're claiming something exists without evidence to back it up, I'm sorry, that's just how it works. You say "there's a dinosaur in my yard," I say "Show me some evidence," you say "ME SAYING IT IS THE EVIDENCE."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Without touching on religion, could you give me a small list of reasons why you think believing in a Creator is nonsense?
Because there's no evidence to support any creator, is that enough reason not to believe it?
Created:
Posted in:
The answer would seem to be if god or gods don't exist, then all other religious proposals would have considerably diminished import. If that were the case, arguing about it becomes akin to arguing about whose favorite song is best, or debating which Jedi knight is strongest with the force. No one bases their life choices on which Jedi's strongest, no one goes to funerals to berate parents of gay soldiers because of disagreements about the meaning of the lyrics of your favorite song.
Created:
Posted in:
Hot take: I hate this song :) and I always have. Not because it's got religious implications, I'm a guy who can cry at a gospel choir performance, but because I just find it drones and grates. Maudlin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Does that make you pro-choice, even in cases where the government would subsidize, pro-comprehensive sex ed in public schools, and ready access to birth control methods like IUD's, also potentially subsidized by the government based on the individual's economic situation?
I don't want to pay for the welfare of single moms so single motherhood should try and be reduced.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I do not believe it is the case. I do not believe we could make sense of anything, ultimately, if this was the case. I believe it is impossible. Thus, prove otherwise. You know you can't.Should I expect silence from my enquiry and questions yet again, as per usual?
I know you don't believe that's the case, I'm asking you to engage in a hypothetical. It can't be so vexing that you cannot even IMAGINE the circumstance, can it? I don't hve to prove anything, I'm just asking you how you think your life would be different if "life were just a freak of nature, an accident, happenstance." What would that mean to how you live your life?
Should I expect silence from my enquiry and questions yet again, as per usual?
No, you should expect the same answers. Watch:
Now, what would be the implications of existence without God? Anything goes. Why would you expect uniformity of nature, things to continue and be sustained? There would be no reason for these things happening.
Exactly. I don't see what the problem is.
For the atheist, why does anything exist at all?
Don't know. Explain why this matters.
I can't understand how there can be a reason because matter devoid of personal being is unable to reason. Thus, the atheist cannot make sense of existence.
So because you can't understand the other argument, yours must be correct: this is the literal definition of arguing from personal incredulity.
Thus, the atheist cannot make sense of existence.
Explain what this means and, crucially, why it's so critical: to make sense of the entirety of all of existence in order to make a conclusion other than yours. Yours makes no sense of existence either, you SAY it does, but it only adds "because of GOd" instead of "I don't know." All I'm asking you to do is demonstrate you're right. NOT THAT YOU DON'T THINK I'M RIGHT.
How would something unreasoning sustain anything? Why would the universe come into existence and how? And if you do, per chance, find a reason, why would you expect to in an unintelligent universe???
Don't know, don't know, and I don't expect to find reason in the universe. I make it for myself. There, all questions answered. Now answer mine.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Life is just a freak of nature, a chance happenstance with no ultimate purpose or meaning.
What happens if this is the case, do you think? Like how would your life, YOURS specifically, be materially different?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The answer is in your question, “...why would such a being (God) so immense and powerful care about a person... at all?” Because he can.
Cool answer, chief. Ok, so you don't know, right? THe question isn't about its ability to do so. It's about why he'd do so. It seems an awful lot like you giving a fig if some amoeba went around using your name to curse other amoebas. Why would you care? Speaking only for myself, I really don't give one thought to what bacteria say about me. Do you think it's a product of his omniscience combined with an inexplicably fragile ego maybe ? Like I don't care, but is that because I don't know what they're saying?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
All I did was ask a question, to which you don't have an answer or even a sensible guess, I take it. IF you did, THEN you'd have verbalized it (this is called an if then statement). Then you tell me not to suggest something (which you leave undetermined) because of something Genesis says. Your question about heaven is nonsense to me, I don't have any reason to believe it's real. I don't know what you're on about, but I know it isn't the topic. Why would a being so immense and powerful that it exists outside of spacetime and can breathe everything into existence and has a plan for each atom, why would such a being care about how a person on one of a trillion planets in some corner of an unremarkable galaxy uses any word at all? This is the question and it doesn't feature the word "if". Please take a stab at it. Or just do what I do when I don't know something: I say I don't know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"If god breathed the universe into existence, why would it give a shit who said its name when and for what in some distant corner of the universe?" is not an if then statement. It's a question.
I know what a syllogism is,, I just don't think "if" is as you describe, useless in logical discussion. I think it's only useless to people who can't use logic to ut their positions on solid ground.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Sorry, that doesn't clarify what you meant by calling the word "if" the most useless in the language or whatever you said. Far less did you clarify how it applies to the topid or how it somehow doesn't make for good logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
If is, by utility, the most useless word in existence because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true. Not a great beginning to an attempt at logic.
I bet this sounded way more profound when you thought it up than it does in print. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Created:
If a race of aliens could conquer traversing the vast distances in space, they absolutely could invade earth with almost no meaningful resistance to their technology. THe question, particularly, as the origin of these theoretical aliens gets further and further away from earth, is why would they want to? THey wouldn't need our resources, and the further away they are, the less technologically advance we'd seem. Even if you go the relatively short distance of 500 light years away, our planet would look like it did in 1521. There's nothing of interest to space faring aliens in 1520.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The question I'm asking is why the heck that would be important to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
I'm not sure why your god, if it created the universe out of nothing, would really care who said its name when. Got an ideas? Honest question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Sorry about the coarse language, snowflake. I'm plenty grown, thanks, just not the pearl clutching type. I bang my wife plenty and with plenty of respect, ace. You're done because you're expsoed as a hypocrite: your objections to premarital sex aren't science based at all, they're faith based which you denied initially. And you can answer the question about the non-pregnancy inducing ways of sexual gratification or pleasure? Is it cool with you if you find out your wife is using a vibrator because you won't bang her unless she's willing to carry a baby? Don't be so sensitive, Rev. Be honest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
This you?
That one has the biological function of procreation, regardless of its feel-good potential.
So you don't bang your wife if you're not trying to get her pregnant? Or do you just take children as they come?
And no answer to the masturbation / oral sex question?
Is your only objection to contraception devices that they aren't 100% effective? There's a lot of medicines that would not meet that standard.
Plus your use of language like "pure" and "unsullied" betrays what your real objection is. There's nothing inherently impure or "sullying" about sex, man. That's the language of judgement, dude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
COngratulations, I mean that's awesome for you but it clearly doesn't work for most people. I've had sex with more than one person, and I've never gotten anyone besides my wife unintentionally pregnant and have never had an STI, so I am not sure I understand either objection (except as a fig leaf to say your obejction to premarital sex is in fact scripturally based, not scientifically), in both your case and the other guy's case. I have never regretted my 'impurity,' I didn't ask my wife to be 'pure' (creepy and a really bad idea), I don't care about any of that, I don't feel bad about sex in any way. Religious adherents of all stripes not only have premarital sex, they also have sex with other people outside of marriages, they also have homosexual sex, they also get people pregnant unintentionally and get STI's, so I'm not sure what the purity argument is except a way to pat yourself on the back.
What's the stance on masturbating, then? If the sex act is for reproduction ONLY, is masturbating cool because that's REALLY only for pleasure? Does that affect your purity? Would it affect your assessoment of your wife's purity if you found out she performed oral sex on someone before she met you? Why? Why not?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
he person who was his God, and so on. I have said elsewhere that this process is eternal, both forward and backward, and that there are generations of gods and man, that man can become a god and beget new generations of man, infinitely into the past, and infinitely into the future, all of us, in all generations, learning line upon line, precept on precept, with the sure knowledge that there is no end to what can be learned, and acted upon by that learning. Is there a progression above God? Why not? All else is infinite; why not progress?
Based on this, I must apologize for mistaking what you were arguing. I thought you were arguing the traditional god of the bible, this is something entirely different that I've never really heard of before, Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I repeat, for the hard of reading:God does, I believe, have plans for us, but does not interfere with our own plans by our agency.
If his plan only works when it coincides with my plan, be definition I've got more power than him. To use your daughter analogy, your daughter might plan to have pancakes for dinner, and her plan only works if you ALSO plan to make pancakes for dinner. If your plan is to have pasta, did she really have a PLAN, or just a wish for pancakes? In that analogy, your daughter's plan for pancakes is exactly the same as god's plan for your life: it's only workable if it's also YOUR plan. Repeating it doesn't clarify how you think it works. Either it's free will or a plan, it isn't both.
If god chooses to limit his own knowledge, he is no longer omniscient. Or he's only pretending to have limited knowledge.
Created:
God does, I believe, have plans for us, but does not interfere with our own plans by our agency.
So he doesn't have a plan, because if it doesn't coincide with MY plan for my life, he's surprised by what I choose?
Comparing your plan for your daughter isn't nearly the same as comparing the mythical 'plan for all atoms across space and time and knows all.' If your version of god is different than that, then I'd say you're not adhering to a traditional interpretation of the god of the bible. If my plans are more effective than his plans, then he didn't have a plan. Like you with your daughter, maybe he had a hope or a wish, but he didn't have a PLAN. They're not the same. If an omniscient being has only hopes or wishes, then he doesn't have knowledge, and is therefore not omniscient. See what I'm saying? You can have free will, or you can have all knowing god. You can't have both, they are contradictory.
ETA, on consideration, it would seem that the claim you're making, that we DO have free agency and it's powerful enough to supersede God's plan, IS in fact a cop out, for the god character in question. Want an explanation for, say, children starving to death? Well, someone's free will must have made that the only sensible outcome, as an all loving god WOULDN'T have planned for children he loves to die in anguish. Why are there wars? Well, some country' collective free will goes against god's plan, and massive violence and death abound as a result. If you take the part where god's plan didn't coincide with man's plan, you're making man's plans superior to god and absolving the all knowing author of everything no blame at all. It's nonsensical.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
There is a common refrain that man is not given free agency, that we are predestined to act as we do. I think that argument is a cop-out so we can blame God for all our troubles. I don't believe God is even totally responsible for anything, let alone most things. He created us, but neither does force our actions, nor has he totally abandoned us to our own devices.
My issue with 'free will' vs predestination is more that if you have a plan for every molecule in the universe, then that means you only have the illusion of free will, not actual free will. For example, did Judas act of his own free will? If so, then it would seem crucifixion was a coincidence, not part of any plan. And if you don't have a plan, and are instead 'surprised' by what people choose to do, so much so that you hold them accountable for all eternity, then you're not all knowing.
But to expect he will always act to prevent our miseries is that very cop-out that he is responsible to fix our problems when we should be trying to fix them ourselves. Blaming God for our troubles is trying to absolve us for everything we do without our going through the responsible sequence of events that allow us to take responsibility and repent for our doing things that do not being us joy. It doesn't work that way.
I don't (and I don't think any non-theist) expect god to 'fix the problems' or absolve us for everything we do, but if we're responsible and god won't do anything about it, what's the point of praying? Maybe I'm not clear on what you're saying.
Created:
Posted in:
I find questions like this one, believers easily wave off with some form of "mysterious ways" defense. I'm sure that's really comforting to the many jews who lost family members.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh, okay, so you're not actually into an honest discussion, you'd rather straw man one sentence and say cool dismissive stuff like "nice rant" as a defense. Sorry, I misunderstood your intent.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The fact still remains every officer that chose to arrest a violent criminal chose to put his life on the line even if it wasn't mandated. If EVERY cop cared about themselves, no arrests of criminals demonstrating criminal behavior would ever be made.
This seems a pretty unsurprising false dichotomy, like cops should be allowed the leeway to assault even non-violent criminals to the point where they're maimed or dead because this way all violent crime will stop, OR, abolish all laws and let anarchy reigns supreme and it's pretty much Arkham City. There's a very wide spectrum and room for a LOT of improvement in the way policing is done, there's plenty of space between the two extremes. Trying to pass off a fake $20 is a crime. It's not a crime you should be executed in the streets over. Speeding is a 'crime.' Being pulled over for speeding shouldn't mean "Let me get my camera set up to record, just in case this cop kills me."
Also, not that I agree with 'defund the police,' but the idea isn't LESS ARRESTS as I understand it. It's to take a different approach to law enforcement. Shouldn't "LESS ARRESTS" be society's goal to begin with? By way of less crime?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Okay, but that's not exactly "You're wrong" and I still don't know how driving my car away presents such potentially imminent bodily harm to a police officer as to justify being tased. Whether the problem stems from public unions or not, the problem I described vis a vis the common policeman's mentality still exists and still impacts lives in a very real way. Get rid of police unions, you'll get no argument from me.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The police officer is far more worried about criminal activity on society than personal safety, otherwise, there would be no arrests.
That doesn't answer the question at all. And if they're not worried about personal safety, why do they carry guns?
I think your view of police officers is a little naive. My former best friend, a guy who was the godfather to both my kids, eventually became a police officer. Through him I met a ton of cops and corrections officers. Almost none of them really gave a rat's ass about "justice" or "society" or even making life for others better. They were basically high school educated nudniks who wanted to carry a gun and be able to punch people and have it be illegal for those people to punch back, and a job from which you could retire at less than 50 and get a pension, basically giving you a license to do nothing from then on if you wanted to. My friend eventually ended up turning out this very same way, and I saw a video of him punching a suspect, whose hands were bound and was laying on his stomach, punched him right in the face. The dude was defenseless. There's no reason to do that, not ever, I'm sorry. I'm not saying all cops are bad people, but none that I ever met were motivated by "the Law" or civil service. Same way most teachers now aren't motivated by "Education" as much as they're motivated by having summers off and a pension in many states. Doesn't mean they're bad or even that they can't be good educators or police, it just means that the intersection is accidental as much as anything else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
. When I am in complete darkness, where normal sight is defeated, my faith provides a feint, yellow light from behind my right shoulder, such that I can partially see ahead about three feet faintly. I don't know why, but it's there.
Can you demonstrate this? Like if you and someone ELSE are alone in the dark, can the other person see this light?
"Thermal sense" = infrared vision.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Presumption of innocence doesn't trump the authority to arrest someone before a trial, otherwise mandatory Jailings and bail would be illegal.
That's not what we're talking about. Submitting to an illegal search, the right to know why you're being arrested or detained, that's the initial presumption of innocence. Exercising those rights doesn't mean you are now liable for being assaulted. And if they'd arrested him and put him in the back of a squad car, brought him to jail and put him on bail, particularly when he'd stopped "resisting," rather than murdered him, we wouldn't even be having this discussion at all, right?
No, but driving off in your car is.
Is it? How? What potential bodily harm does driving off in your car present to a police officer?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
All the more reason not to give them a reason to fire their "Taser."
That's not how the presumption of innocence is supposed to work. These are civil servants, first and foremost, paid by tax dollars with lawsuits settled, essentially, by tax dollars (tax dollars pay the insurance I'm sure they have for big cases, not individual municipalities). Asking a cop why you're being detained is your right as an American, refusing an unlawful search is your right as an American. It's not a reason for a cop to fire a taser, and it isn't 'resisting arrest' to ask these basic questions. Cops are trusted with lethal and non lethal weapons and techniques because we assume they're trained to AVOID USING THEM whenever possible. There seem to be two types of cops: the ones who don't want to use their weapons and training against their FELLOW CITIZEN (cops are not a different 'class' of person, is my point, they should be as liable for unlawful conduct as anyone else is), and the ones who can't wait to use them. Whether you're a racist or you're not, it's the second type of cop that's a real danger.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
But was he helped on his way? It is a question that just has to be asked - unfortunately -regardless of the circumstances.
By this logic, there's no such thing as murder. We're all going to die OF something eventually. You'd simply have to find an expert to say "well, he had poor eating habits and probably would have developed diabetes, which can be fatal, therefore, beating him to death isn't murder.
It's a truly bizarre line of defense.
It's a truly bizarre line of defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
We've discussed this before: these aren't "Special" senses. They're just the five senses calibrated differently. It's not magic.
echo location, blood flow beneath the surface of flesh, and so on.
Faith is not in any way a 'sense' like these are. It's a wish. A hope. We can test for the other senses, including echo location (hearing) and the ability to detect blood flow (sight), this is how we confirmed that these senses exist. We can recreate these senses and use them ourselves, even though our eyes don't see in infrared. They're also survival mechanisms. Can you equate faith to sense in consideration of these facts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
The answer is "every time you've started this topic regardless of which username you're posting under." So why continue to post these same uninteresting topics that don't appear to really want honest discussion? They rather seem to function as some weird way for you to workshop your material, which continues to want for refinement. I think you're a better thinker than this.
Created:
Posted in:
How many different usernames are you going to use to post this same topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I have this reaction to a lot of different music, at times even being moved to tears! I find it has a lot to do with harmony in the music (gospel choir version of I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For on U2's Joshua Tree is the first song I recall eliciting this reaction). Sometimes I think it's because one of the things in life I find most profoundly uplifting is what humans are capable of when we decide to work together. It's the reason I find the third act of The Martian so moving, too. Sometimes it has to do with something in the voice and lyrics, like the hook in Under Pressure, where Bowie sings about how love "dares you to care for the people on the edge of the night." Or recently in a song called "Freedom" by Elena Boynton and Anthony Hamilton, given the context from the film (escaped slaves), where the music stops and she sings "Life hasn't been very kind to me lately...but I suppose it's a push, for movin' on. In time, the sun's gonna shine on me nicely...something tells me good things are comin', and who am I to not believe."
So, yes, you can have these reactions without any supernatural associations at all! It's totally natural and human and why music has existed for as long as people have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Atheists complain the God does nothing to end rape and murder, but also complain that he ordered the killing of the cananites or the global deluge that took out those whose thoughts were only evil continually even refering to the old testament God as an ogre or worse.
No, this is incorrect. The complaint on the various genocides isn't that he doesn't also stop suffering. It's that (a) an all powerful god shouldn't need anyone to do any killing on his behalf and (b) that you can't say a god who commits genocide is also all good and all loving, because he clearly doesn't love the amalekites, for example. He shouldn't need to destroy every human being ever born, and almost all of land life itself, because he was upset at how his creation turned out. He's all powerful and literally no solution is unavailable to him, yet he chooses to drown everything, including animals for some reason.
God can and does do whatever He pleases, and he has a plan in place to end hunger and suffering to those who choose his grace.
And it would then follow that god is choosing to let children who've never heard of him by nature of being born in some non-god affiliate country, to starve. When he could, in fact, solve both problems instantly. Right?
Its impossible to know without knowing the creators intentions.
Well then how do YOU know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
I promise you I won't complain if God did SOMETHING about rape and murder. Can you please point me to an atheist making such a complaint? You're bringing the problem of free will into the problem of suffering, trust me man, it's not going to make your case any easeir. It's going to have the opposite effect. It will diminish not only his omnipotence, but also his omniscience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
So God can't use his power to overcome those politicians and tyrants to solve the problem? You're explaining causes of hunger, not why god doesn't solve the problem using his powers. If god doesn't care about the masses enough to overcome those limiting factors then he's endorsing suffering by allowing it to continue. If god can't overcome the influence of a couple of politicians, then he's REALLY not that powerful, is he?
Pick a different problem if politicians and tyrants are too difficult for god to handle. What about childhood cancer? Surely god could offer a solution to that problem. Could he not use his powers to simply erase the issue, save children and parents needless suffering brought on through no fault of theirs, and allow the doctors and researchers to use the time they're no longer using to solve childhood cancer to make more impacts on diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's? I would point out childhood cancer has nothing to do with free will, it's genetic.
Created: