A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos Atheist:
Like Unreasonable Faith on Facebook for daily skeptical goodness:
The relativist in me would prefer “indifferent” over imaginary. Especially considering what version of God(s) you’re referring to.
Epicurus was first.
Yeah, but most people in the bible belt probably think Epicurus is some kind of anti-wrinkle cream.
You forgot to list that God might cause catastrophies because of the gays. Pat Robertson seems pretty sure that the gays are why God is evil.
Okay, well, let’s see…uh…
Maybe I’m greedy but why not choose all three rather than just one?
You forgot one: god(s) might not even know we exist. “Hay God, what is the-” “What are you?” “I’m a human from earth. You created-” “Listen homan I am to busy shaping galaxies to deal with little bipeds from arph for wherever your from.”
Occam’s Razor easily dispatches that particular version of god. He’s just so damned unnecessary to the equation.
There are a few other options, though.
Incompetent. Insane. Perpetually distracted. Elsewhere. Sleeping. Dead. On a bender. Uncomprehending. Unaware (as Lone Wolf pointed out).
None of which imply incapacity or evil, necessarily. I mean, yeah, obviously non-existence is by far the best inference given available data; my thing is it’s just not that exhaustive a set of options, and that sort of sucks the punch out of the purported trilemma. It’s great rhetoric but poor philosophy.
I like the Epicurean formulation better.
It’s a great rejoinder to the God that monotheists tend to want to believe in, for sure, despite the fact that that God isn’t the God that’s even really described by any of their holy books.
But if they engage in a standard and orderly retreat to the Philosopher’s God position (as they always do in these cases), the Epicurean trilemma will not find blood.
At which point the god they are defending is functionally meaningless, and I am willing to leave them in their lonely fortress sadly waiting for someone to give a shit.
Of course, they only stay in that fortress while under attack. As soon as the attack is over, they come right back to the Jesus/Allah/Yahweh crap like nothing happened.
Except that they’ll be proud that they withstood the attack.
The Epicurean formulation is better but if (hypothetically) gods exist they might not even know that we exist. We could simply be too small for the gods to perceive us and even if they would care about us (which they probably wouldn’t) they couldn’t save us from catastrophes because they don’t even know of us.
Not exactly omniscient, then.
Some some think pres.Putin is a reincarnation of Pope Paul. I pray to god each day to stop 20,000 children dying a day, Priests not to abuse children, not to marry off little girls from the age of 5 to much older men, to stop miners being killed whilst working for wealthy owners, for Mugarbi who tortures people every day to stop. No reply yet, still waiting. Oh so thats why, theres no god is there,why didnt someone tell me.
Each one of those is a form of “not omnicient/omnipotent” — either he doesn’t know or he can’t stop it. The point is that he does not have the essential traits of “God” as the word is defined and understood. These do imply incapacity because they disprove his Godly worth. If he does have Godly traits, and catastrophes still happen, then it’s either evil or nonexistence.
Actually “God” as we refer to “Him” can’t be those things you listed (Incompetent, insane, etc). God, philosophically speaking, is omnipotent and omniscient so it is not possible for him to be incompetent, insane and especially not unaware. For if this supernatural being is unaware (etc) of us he is not all powerful or all knowing and thus it makes no sense to refer to him as god. Trying to philosophize over the extent of power of a non-”omni” god is near impossible.
The gods dark matter and gravity are too busy battle the eldritch abomination known as dark energy to care what a hairless ape on an significant blue rock thinks.
This hairless ape is also apathetic about what a god might think.
That might make a good story. The god of dark energy tries to destroy the universe by ripping it everything apart, the gods of gravity, strong force, matter, etc have to fight the god of dark energy to stop it.
Who is the POV character?
Don’t know. Perhaps gravity, gravity is trying to hold the universe together and dark energy is pushing it apart.
The Great Electron!
Too seasonal for a general-appeal novel. Everyone knows that the Great Electron only puts in an appearance once a year at Halloween, when it surfs its own wave function around the world and delivers an indeterminate number of calories to deserving boys and girls.
In the world, there are both Good and Evil elements. Creation is not dualistic. The Evil elements give rise to Good elements, eg. the sun is needed for life to even exist, but it can cause lethally hot weather. A carnivore may eat a herbivore, but then we may eat that carnivore. A storm may cause flood damage, but without precipitation, the Earth would be dry. As part of the world, humans will experience both Good and Evil, and that is just a fact you’re gonna have to deal with.
I tend to disagree with you about your yin-yang evil/good B.S., but what point are you trying to make exactly?
It’s a question of balance curly!
There’s another option not listed here. Maybe he does exist, does care, and can stop disasters, but finds it necessary to allow them for any number of possible reasons?
Well, after I posted that idea I found a page about it that makes pretty good sense to me, see what you think though: http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/ProblemOfHumanSuffering.html
Yes but what do you think? Just pointing at website and saying this is what I think is neither productive or interesting.
That’s true, isn’t it? Note I never said “this is what I think”. A question was asked, and while I had no immediate answer, someone did. So I linked to them.
So what do you think then as you did say “that makes pretty good sense to me,” … so why does it make pretty good sense to you?
Why did, for example, you god allow or even cause the earthquake in Haiti?
Why do you make so many assumptions? You assume I believe in God and you assume that I would have any idea why he would have allowed an earthquake. However, if you had read the article I linked to, you probably would have found a christian answer for that, and that was the point.
Why the fuck would I read an ‘article’ linked to by some random uninteresting nobody from some shitty same old arguments wank Christian site … either say what you think i.e. contribute something or just STFU. You do understand the idea of having your own ideas don’t you?
My bad, I thought this discussion was about “reasonable thoughts on religion, science, and skepticism” as the top of the page says. Not belittling people and swearing at them because they presented an opposing view, be it their own or not. I’ll look elsewhere for intellectual conversation.
How is handwaiving us to a site, where by your own words you don’t really believe, taking part in a discussion? When people have pressed you for details all you’ve done is dodge and weave and now blame us for your own failures.
You’re confused. The fact is that I had nothing of my own to argue, and I never pretended to, thus ‘pressing me for details’ is pointless. The only thing I did was try to provoke intelligent conversation by presenting someone who seems to have decent points against what is being said here. I certainly never blamed anyone for anything either, while I may have been put off by Jabster’s attitude there’s quite a difference. Why are so many people on this site so hostile? I don’t believe it’s ever been this bad when I’ve dealt with the people on the other side of the ‘debate’.
The fact is that I had nothing of my own to argue, and I never pretended to
What do you call this then?
Why are so many people on this site so hostile?
Answer: Because you’re displaying troll-like qualities, not contributing anything, hand-waving us to a godbot site, and playing the martyr card…
I don’t believe it’s ever been this bad when I’ve dealt with the people on the other side of the ‘debate’.
…and you tried to make it sound like Jabster was wrong when he made the connection that you were also an ignorant godbot. So, more or less, you’re a liar.
Just because what I’m contributing isn’t my own doesn’t mean I’m not contributing. I was interested in seeing a discussion about a web page I had found, but was met with only hostility, now including yours. You think just because I recognize that when I talk to christians I’m not insulted every other sentence like I am here it makes me a liar? The only thing I said was that Jabster was making assumptions, because whether I’m a ‘godbot’ is completely irrelevant. In your assumption that I am I have learned that you people must think everything that comes out of a god believer’s mouth is some kind of attack. You really think I’m the one being a troll here? I’m the only one who hasn’t insulted anyone or accused anyone of anything. The direction you guys have taken my attempt to start a debate is really sad…
“The direction you guys have taken my attempt to start a debate is really sad…”
Excellent … so fuck off then and don’t come back. If I wanted the same level of engagement I could get from you, I’d just drink ten pints and rant at the TV.
p.s. Did I tell you to fuck right off or was it just fuck off?
You’re unusually mellow tonight, Jabster. Usually you’re a lot more blunt than this. :)
Sorry .. it’s just that knobs like Zephan piss me right off. I would really rather that he’s a troll otherwise there’s the horrible thought that a few million years of evolution and this is what it’s produced.
Anyway … and relax, unclench buttocks and release lemon … how are you?
Oh, I’m doing quite well. Celebrating my birthday today, got to say goodbye to the diet for 24 hours, started off breakfast with a 500-calorie chocolate covered chocolate donut, and finished it up with a large hot fudge sundae. In between those two bookends I crammed in a delicious cheese sandwich grilled in butter, several tangerines, some tortilla chips, a bowl of hiyashi wakame, four pieces of nigiri sushi, a bowl of miso soup, salad with ginger dressing, a deep-fried chicken cutlet in ponzu sauce, five pieces of spicy tuna roll with lots of ginger and wasabi, two deep-fried gyozu, a bowl of sticky rice, and a large bottle of hot sake. Life is good.
Well first things first … happy birthday and all that and second things second …
“started off breakfast with a 500-calorie chocolate covered chocolate donut, and finished it up with a large hot fudge sundae.”
Now as an Englishmen bred on sexual innuendo I just had to have a fnaaar, fnaaar at that!
… but thirdly and lastly – you obviously like Japanese food and myself and my better half went out for a Japanese meal tonight and I tried, for the second time, an unfiltered cold sake and it’s very, very nice (very smooth with a slight sweet taste) but what I don’t understand is that the label says product of the US – what’s that all about?
“I was interested in seeing a discussion about a web page I had found”
Discuss it yourself, you lazy sod. Try some basic intellectual decency. We’re not going to do your work for you. If you’ve got nothing, read and think until you *have* something, then come back. Wtf.
Well, at least I brightened your day, didn’t it? But to paraphrase Freud, sometimes a donut is just a donut. Our innuendos are somewhat different over here. E.g., we Yanks will smirk at you (or possibly look aghast, depending on your target) if you say you’re planning to knock someone up.
After Rich ‘I hate the gayz but can’t tell you why’, Zephan was ripe for getting a verbal kicking … I just came across this site, I mean really just how lame is that?
Anyway, anyway … back to the comedy section – we British are fortune in that we’ve managed to convince large parts of the world that we’re really, really funny as we do knob gags. Who needs an empire we you can do that?
Just because what I’m contributing isn’t my own doesn’t mean I’m not contributing.
It means you’re relying on something/someone else to do your contributing for you. This happens often with people that cannot think for themselves. Unknown screennames hop on here and expect us to read Answersingenesis from top-to-bottom quite often. If you’re not getting the response you wanted, I’d try a different approach.
I was interested in seeing a discussion about a web page I had found, but was met with only hostility, now including yours.
You failed to mention anything about this page that other than “makes sense to me”. You’re not even remotely following any forum-discussion etiquette by doing this. You are rightly labeled a ‘troll’ at this point.
You think just because I recognize that when I talk to christians I’m not insulted every other sentence like I am here it makes me a liar? The only thing I said was that Jabster was making assumptions, because whether I’m a ‘godbot’ is completely irrelevant.
You’re a liar because you’re pathetically attempting to discredit the astute conclusion Jabster came to when he called you out as a godbot. The fact that you’re a godbot is more relevant than you’d think. If you weren’t a godbot, you’d probably understand exactly why you’re being treated the way you are. You’d also understand that the christians you’re around are, in all probability, would say the same things about you, just not to your face. Christians feel the need to put on a ‘christlike’ front, whatever ‘christlike’ really means, it often is just a fixed smile, and a patronizingly humble presentation overall.
In your assumption that I am I have learned that you people must think everything that comes out of a god believer’s mouth is some kind of attack.
Pretty much, but not in the way you’re thinking. Godbots are constantly attacking their own critical thinking, in an attempt to make their god make sense. You’re not getting this response because we think you’re attacking us. You’re getting it because you’re showing us that you’re either ignorant, stupid, or a troll.
You really think I’m the one being a troll here? I’m the only one who hasn’t insulted anyone or accused anyone of anything. The direction you guys have taken my attempt to start a debate is really sad…
Someone that recently became an atheist on this very site said about the same thing. The facts are these:
You value the delivery of the argument over the content. Here, the content is all that matters. Content being ones personal thoughts, ideas, explanations, or questions – NOT those of a trained apologist’s wharrgarbl from a known apologist site. The mere fact that you’re commenting on our attitude instead of responding, with content, to our posts, shows that you have nothing of value to say. You’re here to play your martyr card, appeal to emotion, and hand-wave our questions to another second-hand know-it-all.
Regardless of what you may believe, there are no ‘learned’ or ‘scholarly’ people with religious answers about god/jesus/allah. Your interpretation is just as good as theirs. Ergo, any thought in your head about your religion is just as valid as that pile of s**t website you sent us to.
I think it makes no attempt to answer the relevant question, and was in fact written specifically to create the illusion that the question had been answered while intentionally side-stepping it.
I think the core rationalization of this article only works if you’re positing a god who does not intervene in the universe. Such a god if it existed, could hardly be called good or evil as we would have no data on which to base such an assessment. Once you try to apply it to any conception of god which does intervene in the universe (particularly one who is said to be omnipotent and benevolent) as Clayton does in this article (also see this article, and this one, where the same author explicitly argues that god does exactly that) (that second link is pretty definitive proof against the honesty of the author, but I’m more immediately concerned with his argument here), it falls apart.
If there is a god who controls every aspect of the universe, and interferes as he sees fit, then he would of course bear some responsibility for how that universe turns out. There’s not really any way around that. Clayton recognizes this as clearly as Epicurus did. There is no real answer for this question unless you are willing to consider impotent, evil or imaginary (or just doesn’t give a f*ck) as possible traits of god. For obvious reasons most christians are unable or unwilling to consider these possibilities, and yet christendom (or at least the industry of christian apologetics) requires at least the appearance that this question has already been answered (otherwise the god they are arguing for might look like kind of a dick).
Clayton attempts to cover this gaping plot hole by claiming that human suffering is caused by human foolishness (to be fair, most of it is, but not in the way he intends us to believe) (he doesn’t mention this explicitly here but he’s pretty obviously talking about the original sin story). That god gave us a perfect world, and a perfect way of living, but we f*cked it up. And that it was because we turned from god’s plan that things went badly (and we’re back to impotent).
He attempts to draw a parallel between disobeying god’s commandments and building one’s house on a volcano, but makes no attempt to establish that scripture is a good source of advice (it isn’t) or explain away the countless times that suffering has been directly caused by people following god’s commandments. It assumes (and asks the reader to assume) that if every one followed the bible, none of these problems would exist. This is a profoundly naïve worldview (I will however credit the author for his endorsement of empathy. If more christians believed in the golden rule some of those problems would go away).
And then (in the eighth paragraph).It goes from harmless foolishness, to foolishness that could only possibly cause suffering, when he attempts to address the question of innocent people whose suffering is caused by the actions of others.
“But on the other hand I opened this discussion by reading to you a passage from the ninth chapter of John, which describes a situation that does not fall in this category. Jesus was passing by, the Bible tells us in John 9:1–3, and He saw a man who was blind from his birth, born without sight. Now His disciples asked Him the typical question. They said, “Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” It was their conviction that the problems that the man had were a result of man’s sin, which in some cases is correct. But notice what Jesus said in the third verse: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” Jesus said it was not because this man sinned or not even because his parents sinned that he was born blind. It was not sin that did it. It was not that this man abused his body; it was not that this man abused his environment; it was not that this man failed to heed the warnings of his environment. Jesus said it was that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”
Okay, this one actually comes from the new testament rather than John Clayton, but it is one of the most poisonous ideas man has yet devised. Believing that the suffering of ourselves or our fellow humans is actually a good thing, because god might be glorified through it (or as this view is more commonly expressed, that our souls might be saved) as truly akin to building your house on a volcano.
And why do christian apologists actually think this is an answer to the problem of human suffering? If god is intentionally letting (or causing) people to suffer so that he will look better, that would actually make god more responsible for human suffering, not less.
Glad to see someone making good points against the page rather than refusing to read it and freaking out at me. While everything you say is very thought provoking to me, there is another thing I’d like to hear someone argue against. If the world was perfect, and there was no suffering or disasters, would anyone believe in God then? Wouldn’t everyone simply say “Why should there be a god? Everything’s fine without one.”?
Also, when you say suffering was caused directly by people following the commandments, could you give a specific example? Especially if you have one where the people that were following the commandments were the ones suffering.
You really are a fucking knob aren’t you Zepher … someone actually goes to the effort of replying to you and you basically reply with – whatever here’s another question. What don’t you try and engage with people here or else go and play and the traffic?
Sorry about Jabster. He can be a bit abrasive, but what he does is unfortunately necessary (although perhaps more enthusiastically dickish than is strictly necessary) so that we can have that more reasonable discussion.
You see, it is a pretty common occurrence around here that someone appears at our door to proclaim that atheism is false for reasons they are unable or unwilling to say but here’s this website that pretends to explain it. It is generally an indication that the person in question does not wish to have an honest conversation (or that they haven’t really thought about what they’re saying). With the sheer volume of these incidents I’m sure you can understand why he might be a bit impatient. Still his manners do not speak for all of us. If you are in fact here to have a serious discussion, that is why I am here as well, so by all means, let’s do that.
But if we could just put aside the “fuck off and play in traffic” bit for a moment, Jabster’s initial question is an important one, and one I would have to put to you as well.
I’m also a little unclear on what point (if any) you were intending to make with your initial statement. If we could clarify that I think it will lead to a more fruitful discussion. And while I don’t actually speak for others here, I predict you’ll see a sharp decrease in the verbal abuse if you can answer the original question.
So I will answer your two questions (no guarantee that the answer is what you’re looking for), and in exchange I would like you to answer Nzo’s one question (which I think is a perfectly fair request).
And I’m not asking you to explain all of god’s unfathomable reasons or anything like that. Just your reason for believing “does exist, does care, and can stop disasters, but finds it necessary to allow them” is a viable option is all I’m looking for here.
Of course you did not technically say you believe that, but as our knowledge of your actual views is limited to what you have said here (and which words from others you yourself have chosen to represent your views here) it is a rather straightforward conclusion.
Sam Harris: “Either god can do nothing to stop catastrophes, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either: impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick and choose wisely.” Zephlan: “There’s another option not listed here. Maybe he does exist, does care, and can stop disasters, but finds it necessary to allow them for any number of possible reasons?” Nzo : “Such as?” Zephlan: “Here’s this website that explains it.”
Do you see the conclusion that pretty much anyone reading this would logically come to?
If you are saying that the arguments in the article you linked are a reasonable defense against the Epicurean dilemma, you are wrong (“god has his reasons” falls under “doesn’t care to”, see “evil”).
If you are not saying that, it might remove some of this confusion if you could not say that just a little more clearly.
What “possible reasons” were you referring to when you said “Maybe he does exist, does care, and can stop disasters, but finds it necessary to allow them for any number of possible reasons?” I realize you probably meant that statement in the abstract sense, but if there are not “possible reasons” then the statement is, in a less abstract sense, false.
The problem of human suffering is not something to be lightly dismissed. It is a legitimately damning problem against the christian concept of god. And if you wish to take issue with it, then you should actually do so, say what you think the issue is.
Priests and theologians have always used appeal to “divine mystery” or “god’s greater plan” to sweep this question under the rug. Saying he could possibly have some reason doesn’t actually tell us anything. Yes it’s a possibility. Lots of stuff is a fucking possibility. But that in itself means nothing. Not all possibilities are equal.
Let’s say we grant that god exists (a proposition for which there is no reliable evidence), and then further grant that it is the christian version of god (a proposition which is basically impossible), and then further grant that he has some big intricate plan for the Universe (at this point why the fuck not), we are still left with the question, “are god’s reasons good reasons?”.
The word “god” tends to imply “an all knowing, all powerful creator who controls everything and generally wants what’s best for his creation”. Just as the word “catastrophes” implies “those senseless fuckups of nature that kill and maim countless innocent people”. If you understand that part, it should be fairly obvious to you why Epicurus still wins.
If it is your intention to get god off the hook, you will need to bring something more substantive than maybe he had some possible reason.
If you are just trying to stimulate discussion, that’s excellent, and I’ve no wish to discourage you. But you should say so clearly as that hypothetical discussion is a slightly different one than if you are actually endorsing these ideas yourself.
If (as I think is probably the case) you are just a bit unsure of what your own views actually are, and are hoping to see the two sides make their case so you can determine which position is stronger, that is something to be encouraged as well (though I would point out that many such debates have already occurred and some of them can be found right here on the internet). And I don’t mind giving you a few arguments against christianity (or links to websites containing those arguments) if that’s what you’re looking for.
But first your two questions…(as I said, these are probably not the answers you are looking for, but they are the actual answers to the questions you decided to ask).
“If the world was perfect, and there was no suffering or disasters, would anyone believe in God then? Wouldn’t everyone simply say “Why should there be a god? Everything’s fine without one.”?”
The problem of human suffering is one good reason to disbelieve a particular view of god (the one held by most people who believe in god). For most people who do not believe in god, the main reason not to believe in god is the lack of evidence for his existence. It has nothing to do with any assessment of how good he is or how much unnecessary suffering there is in the world. “Does god exist” is a different question than “is god good”.
Perhaps I could more meaningfully address your question if you were to clarify whether god is any more apparent in this hypothetical universe than in ours (it should also be taken into account that in almost every hypothetical universe there will be some people who do believe in god).
“When you say suffering was caused directly by people following the commandments, could you give a specific example? Especially if you have one where the people that were following the commandments were the ones suffering.”
Admittedly, most of my best examples would be of people inflicting suffering on others by following god’s commandments. But it goes both ways pretty easily. When god commands things that are directly detrimental to the well-being of the commandment follower, you can expect to see people suffering for their faith.
Oh Nox, I missed you…
I missed you too JonJon.
If the world was perfect, and there was no suffering or disasters, would anyone believe in God then? Wouldn’t everyone simply say “Why should there be a god? Everything’s fine without one.”?
There may be more chance that people believe in a good / perfect god in this situation than in the real world. After all, he (/she/it) made – and maintains – everything perfectly, just like him (/her/it).
To take a stab at answering your question “would people believe in a God if he created a perfect universe?”, it contains an implicit assumption that the only way god can reveal himself reliably is via contrasting his actions with some external variable. I fail to see how anyone could defend this assumption, especially if they believed god to be omnipotent.
If god created a perfect universe, he would simply have to reveal himself in some way that doesn’t require people to suffer beforehand.
Another approach to this is to say that, if a good god was incapable of revealing himself without also inflicting suffering, then said god would probably be content to remain invisible and instead end suffering. After all, so what if people don’t believe in you, if you have been able reduce or even end suffering by remaining hidden?
WOW tags got messed up – sorry, could i get a srvr munkeh on that? Also, I had to try and post that twice because apparently I was posting too fast – I was over my limit of 3 posts in 12 hours ’till that second time trying to post it! (something is terribly wrong!)
Sorry about the “posting too fast” thing. We’re still getting flooded with spam.
Thanks for the fix!
It’s all gravy, I know that evil god of the bible attacks us atheists because he hates our freedom. Keep fighting the good fight brother!
It’s the institutions, stupid.
“Gods” are irrelevant because all gods are dead. With “gods” gone, religions appear as they have always been: institutions seeking illegitimate political (secular) power based on wholly irrational ideological claims.
• To argue with xians indulges them with pointless, meaningless discourse about “gods”. Theology is a diversionary waste of time. Theology is the subject without an object. It fifth-rate fan fiction.
Instead religious institutions must be attacked as de facto centers of anti-democratic ideology which deserves no more respect than any other hate-filled, racist, enemy of the Open Society. (Their intolerance cannot be tolerated in our secular state. They have no place in making public policy.)
• The irrelevance of the existence (or non-existence) of some god to political legitimacy in an Open Society was carefully engineered by James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution.
The US Constitution guarantees a radical right which millions of Americans would deny to all of us — the right of freedom of conscience. The right to go to Hell in our own way. Would you really want to serve the god-proxies of that sadistic “Father” worshiped by the big-3 Monster Theisms? (“In heaven, the best people are missing” — Nietzsche.)
• Even should some “god” exist, as claimed by xianity, or by theisms, or by deism, we have the sovereign right to reject any claim that “It” must be acknowledged, accepted, or worshiped.
Let the xian politico-religious ideologues understand that “the sleep of reason breeds monsters”. Xians themselves.
I think abusing Zephan is moronic as especially as he sounds like a doubter and wanted a considered opinion on the religious site he mentioned. I visited the site and there is a lot of wind but no substance as to why gods allow misery.In fact the author seems as confused as most “thinking” theists and I suspect if he had a few of us atheists chatting to him he would be released from the burden of religion.
If he’s too lazy/stupid to post something in his own words, he’s probably too lazy to deserve respectful discourse.
“Well, after I posted that idea I found a page about it that makes pretty good sense to me”
He posted an “idea”, then chose to have a website explain it for him, and expects us to take the time to read something from “doesgodexist.org”. Right – that’s what I want to do in my discussions… let’s just have everyone else think for us! Non-stop links to other webpages as arguments!
He’s more than welcome in the fundieclub imo.
… and I think complaining that abusing Zephan is moronic as ‘we’ should have shown him the error of his ways when the person doing the complaining didn’t make any effort to show him the error of his ways is twatonic – what say you?
p.s. Have a look how Zephan’s reply to Nzo if you really want to see moronic ..
Your Question is answered in Genesis when man Chose Sin.
I see you are taking the, “God is Evil.” option. Bold Choice.
how do you get “god is evil” ? That is clearly a sign of a un-educated athesist . If you comprehend what you read out of Genesis you understand man had a choice to have a perfect world or a sinful world (witch includes destruction).
If you comprehend what you read out of Genesis, you have an evil, stupid, non-omnipotent, strangely bronze-age-human-like, arrogant ass of a ‘god’.
God’s omniscient… means he knew what was going to happen and let it happen anyway. So loving.
Great how you call others “un-educated” while being quite unable to spell or construct a good sentence.
Why is it when people call others “uneducated,” they sound like they’re in 2nd grade? Though, to be honest, I’m pretty sure I knew the difference between “which” and “witch” in 2nd grade.
Ummm Derek. Have you actually read Genesis? Eve was deceived by the serpent into eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
That’s not a choice. That’s trickery.
It wouldn’t have made a spit of difference if Eve eat of that fruit or not. When you’re dealing with the kind of personality that delight in leaving temptations out in the open, you know he’ll get you eventually.
Also hi people, from stumbleupon.
Hi Chris! Welcome to UF. Hope you like it here!
he is maybe trying cure earth from a disease called humans. just look at earth on space pictures, looks like cancer to me. city and roads polluting nature, genocide again animal spices, trying to punch holes in the ozone layer. Why should he save us? we are destroying his work!
Hey, we’re just another species. How are our constructions any different than a beaver’s dam? We both evolved on this planet and we both build things. Who’s to say that one is natural and one is not? I submit that natural/unnatural is a distinction without content.
This, with the caveat that, given that we can envision a more sustainable way of building than beavers or our ancestors, we do have a responsibility to at least try.
Also, as a further response to SA! god has only himself to blame. If he is moral, then he he cannot use his incompetence at creating a master species as an excuse to destroy us.
If he existed then we are part of his work and if we fukc things up it’s due to his design. If he care about the environment why doesn’t he just pop over for a few minutes with the blueprints for a clean renewable energy source, a molecular fabricator that will allow the generation of unlimited food and the designs for spaceships that will allow us to spread into the rest of the solar system and the universe so we don’t need to build more cities and road to deal with an increasing population?
God! here. I’m ready to answer your question. Impotent, Evil or Imaginary? To be honest I don’t really give a flying spaghetti monster about your troubles. Does that make me evil or indifferent? I wouldn’t lift a finger if I had one. Does that make me indifferent of imaginary? Really fellas, I’m trying to be all things to all people. Its the least that I can do. Does that make me lazy? I get a kick out of all this time you spend debating the nonexistant. If I existed I sure woulda made something better than you putzes. Because only a putz could have imagined a god like me. Seriously. Get yourself a real god or get a life. Which reminds me. William Shatner would make a great god. Worship Will! You putzes.
“I get a kick out of all this time you spend debating the nonexistant. ”
What a theistic thing to say… hmmm.
Well, I spend time debating the nonexistent because I’m sick and f*cking tired of the Religious Right in this country (the US) trying to tell me what to do with my life. I debate because I want people to realize how their beliefs affect others. I debate because sometimes, just sometimes, someone comes around and rejects the silliness.
But hey! Keep being sarcastic and apathetic because that’s just awesome.
I love how much effort he put into coming here and telling us we’re stupid to argue about something he doesn’t care about.
For what it’s worth though, I also get a kick out of these debates and conversations. Which is why I engage in them in the first place. Oi vey!
Follow Patheos on