*************
M*W: According to atheist David Hume, "Epicurus' old questions are yet unanswered. Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent? Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent? Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?" ~ David Hume

I appreciate your comments. ~ M*W

The standard response would seem to be: without evil, how would you know what good is?

The standard response would seem to be: without evil, how would you know what good is?

I Still dont think we know

I Still dont think we know

In this context, good would be whatever God says is good. We do have to look at this through a theist's eyes, no?

In this context, good would be whatever God says is good. We do have to look at this through a theist's eyes, no?

Then I would say that god allows evil to exist because in us he bestowed the freedom of choice and evil is not a construct of god directly, but a creation of the beings he created?

Then I would say that god allows evil to exist because in us he bestowed the freedom of choice and evil is not a construct of god directly, but a creation of the beings he created?

Sounds pretty on target. If we couldn't commit acts of evil, would we really have freedom of choice is the selling point.

Sounds pretty on target. If we couldn't commit acts of evil, would we really have freedom of choice is the selling point.

I dont think we would, which leads to the question why would we be given the capacity to do evil if god knew it was going to happen in the first place?

I dont think we would, which leads to the question why would we be given the capacity to do evil if god knew it was going to happen in the first place?

Which would beg the next question, what would you rather have: freedom of choice, or the scariest form of authoritarianism ever imagined? You thought Big Brother was bad, Big Father'll show you how it's done!

Which would beg the next question, what would you rather have: freedom of choice, or the scariest form of authoritarianism ever imagined? You thought Big Brother was bad, Big Father'll show you how it's done!

hehe, I would say that, you have that option open to you, its called being a good theist and going to heaven, but the way you made it sound is way too 1984 :p

The standard response would seem to be: without evil, how would you know what good is?

Yes, that one is trotted out too often. Of course the answer is, if everything was good, why would you need to measure it against anything?

Meanwhile, on 'is god willing bit not able, or able, but not willing', .. well it doesn't matter because god doesn't come across as being a nice guy from either outcome.

This of course is excused with 'god works in mysterious ways', if you call tsunamis and famines 'mysterious', that is.

I dont see how you could have intelligent beings without some who be considered 'evil'.

Of course if we were to look at this scientifically\medically then we would normally blame this on mental defects. Except of course for demons.

If you as me, the author quoted is not ver intelligent either.

Yes, that one is trotted out too often. Of course the answer is, if everything was good, why would you need to measure it against anything?

So are you advocating the sacrifice of our freedom of choice?

I think it is likely that if God exists humans must be pretty insignifcant to him/her/it. It would seem to be a question of scale. I don't care about the welfare of bacteria--hell I don't even care about the welfare of ants--so why should God care about human suffering.

The argument that we need to experience evil to know good is fallacious--you can have the direct experience of good (or cold, or life, or happiness, etc.) without the experience of its opposite. And certainly God, being omnipotent, could reveal the direct experience of good without having to resort to the use of evil.

*************
M*W: According to atheist David Hume, "Epicurus' old questions are yet unanswered. Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent? Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent? Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?" ~ David Hume

I appreciate your comments. ~ M*W

There has been a problem on Gods part and this is reflected in our lives as well.

*************
M*W: According to atheist David Hume, "Epicurus' old questions are yet unanswered. Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent? Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent? Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?" ~ David Hume

I appreciate your comments. ~ M*W

Also, we also have to remember that from the theist's point of view (specifically the Abrahamic one as I'm pretty sure that's the one we're talking about), it's impossible for God to be considered evil because everything God is and everything God says is what makes good things good.

The best way I can put that is, good things aren't good because they're good. They're good because God says they're good.

So nothing God does, be it action or lack of action, can be considered evil because he, in essence, IS goodness.

I think it is likely that if God exists humans must be pretty insignifcant to him/her/it. It would seem to be a question of scale. I don't care about the welfare of bacteria--hell I don't even care about the welfare of ants--so why should God care about human suffering.

We're speshal.

Well at htis point in development humans are left to the whims of nature. (not talking about the weather)

Addendum:

I think presently if God were to make an assessment, what would he\she\it think? For that matter what would you think if you were in that position? I know what i would be thinking....

...maybe it was just meant to be, after all where is the evidence that intelligence has evolved? And if it has NOT or does not evolve then what? If we are dangerous with clubs and rocks...sure with time knowledge develops but if the engine is the same then what? The only solution is collective intelligence, like billions of microprocessors in unison.

Also, we also have to remember that from the theist's point of view (specifically the Abrahamic one as I'm pretty sure that's the one we're talking about), it's impossible for God to be considered evil because everything God is and everything God says is what makes good things good.

The best way I can put that is, good things aren't good because they're good. They're good because God says they're good.

So nothing God does, be it action or lack of action, can be considered evil because he, in essence, IS goodness.

And we used to treat fathers this way, in general. And slowly we learned that this pattern wasn't helping anyone, even the fathers.
And so it has been with God.
He messed up, he's working on it.
Notions of the always perfect God are very hard for most theists to let go of. But it needs to be let go of. If nothing else it will take a toy away from atheists. Time for everyone to grow up.

There may just be a need for balance, what we like or do not like is of little consequence.

M*W: According to atheist David Hume, "Epicurus' old questions are yet unanswered. Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent? Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent? Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?" ~ David Hume

Is "evil" always evil? What we might think is "evil" just might be "good" for the greater majority of people.

A good example, I think, is World War II ...war is evil, as most people would agree, and yet that very evil thing stopped a much greater evil from happening. So ...is war always evil? Or is the end result worth the momentary evil ...and so is ultimately good?

So .....is "evil" really always evil? Or do we have to wait for a few centuries to know? And how do we know when to stop wondering?

Baron Max

Is "evil" always evil? What we might think is "evil" just might be "good" for the greater majority of people.

A good example, I think, is World War II ...war is evil, as most people would agree, and yet that very evil thing stopped a much greater evil from happening. So ...is war always evil? Or is the end result worth the momentary evil ...and so is ultimately good?

So ...is "evil" really always evil? Or do we have to wait for a few centuries to know? And how do we know when to stop wondering?
*************
M*W: I think "evilness" is relative from different perspectives. Your example of "war is evil" is timely and appropriate, but isn't that the purpose of war--putting a stop to or anihilating the greater evil? I would think so.

The outcomes of war may not be immediately recognized. In other words, we could "win the battle, but lose the war." There has to be a good reason for a war, because if war is started on a whim out of personal selfishness or gratification (as when Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait), that is never right and always evil IMO. To enter WWII, after we were attacked was necessary if not obligatory.

In the case of Kuwait, it did take years to curtail the whim of a mad man, and although we know this mad man has been stopped, we may not know for years to come how our efforts in Iraq play out. As humans, we'd rather know right now what the future would be like, but we're not fortune tellers. I don't believe anyone of us likes war, but sometimes it's a necessity to prepare for a better future.

So, to answer your question, "is evil always evil?," I would like to counter balance it with, "is good always good?" The answer to both is No. There is never going to be a black-or-white answer to this. Evil can turn into good, and good can turn into evil given the effective parameters and paradigms.
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote of the Day:

"Religion has done more to bust-up humanity than anything." ~ Whoopi Goldberg

So are you advocating the sacrifice of our freedom of choice?

Oh no, it's just that when people question why is there evil in the world, xtians always trot out the freedom of choice line.

I would be happy with choosing between good acts, and not quite so good acts. That's still freedom of choice, we don't need to be able to choose to do evil.

So, to answer your question, "is evil always evil?," I would like to counter balance it with, "is good always good?" The answer to both is No. There is never going to be a black-or-white answer to this. Evil can turn into good, and good can turn into evil given the effective parameters and paradigms.

Yeah, see what God has to put up with every day? ...while He's sipping on his mint julep and looking down at us fucking up the entire Earth? How would you like to have His job? And how would you like to see M*W constantly criticizing everything? :D

"Religion has done more to bust-up humanity than anything." ~ Whoopi Goldberg

Religion didn't do any of those things, people did. And that's what you and others fail to realize or take into account. Muslims terrorists blow up people every day in the name of the Muslim religion, but the religion hasn't done one single thing harmful to anyone ....only humans do harm.

Baron Max

I would be happy with choosing between good acts, and not quite so good acts. That's still freedom of choice, we don't need to be able to choose to do evil.

But obviously others aren't so satisfied as you seem to be. What you might want is not what others obviously want. Who are you to tell them what they can and can't choose?

Baron Max

Religion didn't do any of those things, people did. And that's what you and others fail to realize or take into account.

Baron Max

I think it is just a way to abscond from respnsibility.

I think it is just a way to abscond from respnsibility.

Oh, sure ...of course you'd say that. But think of it this way, ....how many people has communism killed in the world? Do you blame it on communism, and some little book that someone wrote? Or do you blame it on the people who did the killing?

Baron Max

Well, i mean the Atheist viewpoint of religion and war. I cannot run away fast enough to get away from human nature...um, one cannot run away fast enough to get away...er, you cannot run away...you can run but you will never get away from.........sonofabitch:mad:

And how would you like to see M*W constantly criticizing everything? :D
*************
M*W: I should have known that any reply I sent you would be belittled. What criticizing did I have in my post?

Religion didn't do any of those things, people did. And that's what you and others fail to realize or take into account.
*************
M*W: Exactly what do I fail to realize IYO? I certainly know the difference between religion:people. Make sure you know what you're talking about, before you make an ass out of yourself.

Muslims terrorists blow up people every day in the name of the Muslim religion, but the religion hasn't done one single thing harmful to anyone .... only humans do harm.
*************
M*W: What exactly is your problem? You sound as if you have pre-recorded messages in your brain for picking and choosing, but none of them are within the realms of reality. You're just a talking head with nothing to say.

Well, i mean the Atheist viewpoint of religion and war. I cannot run away fast enough to get away from human nature...um, one cannot run away fast enough to get away...er, you cannot run away...you can run but you will never get away from.........sonofabitch:mad:
*************
M*W: Please explain what you mean exactly by "the Atheist viewpoint of religion and war."

There are too many variables. My impression is that very religious people would be less likely to go to war. Do you agree with that?

Of course a benchmark can be the crusades. but i have read that was because others were on the march-so to speak.

God can prevent evil, but permits it. This does not mean God is malevolent. Evil is part of God's creation. But, creation is not God. We come to know God through love, but God does not force us to love him. How can we come to love God without knowing evil? Our choice requires knowledge of evil.

Oh no, it's just that when people question why is there evil in the world, xtians always trot out the freedom of choice line.

I would be happy with choosing between good acts, and not quite so good acts. That's still freedom of choice, we don't need to be able to choose to do evil.

Good point.

I wonder whence the insistence of some people (especially Christians) on presenting the choices either as "good" or as "evil"; as opposed to presenting them as "good" and as "less good".

But obviously others aren't so satisfied as you seem to be. What you might want is not what others obviously want. Who are you to tell them what they can and can't choose?

Baron Max

I didn't direct what others could or couldn't choose. I merely stated what I was happy choosing from, and that evil was not necessary.

Quite stuffing straw men Max, it's tiresome.

evil exists only in the human mind (because adam and eve ate the fruit), so if god would prevent evil, we would have no free will.

*************
M*W: According to atheist David Hume, "Epicurus' old questions are yet unanswered. Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent? Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent? Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?" ~ David Hume

I appreciate your comments. ~ M*W

According to the bible, God recognized that man's rebelilon that started in the Garden of Eden would cause him to be imperfect and prone to selfish rather than the righteous course. The bible describes our every inclination as bad.

As we can see from the bible,s account God did not attempt to stop every act of violence and injustice that occured on the Earth. Why? As a whole man has chosen to side with God's enemy, Satan who caused that rebellion in the first place. No wonder then that the "whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." Thus this is Satan's world. The governements and prevailing attitudes are all counter to God's purpose.

In the past God interfered only when his nation of people were threatened. Now that Israel abandon it's covenant there is no litteral nation on Earth doing God's will.

How does this help us to understand why God allows violence in the world?

God has given us an individual voice to side with him and he has also alloted a time to end all suffering and wickedness on the Earth. But for right now is our time to choose his side or the rest of the world. That is how important choice is to God.

*************
M*W: According to atheist David Hume, "Epicurus' old questions are yet unanswered. Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent? Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent? Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?" ~ David Hume

I appreciate your comments. ~ M*W

I think that if you are religious, you should not try to understand God. I'd assume in most religions he would be working on an agenda that we could not understand, contemplate or know

*************
M*W: According to atheist David Hume, "Epicurus' old questions are yet unanswered. Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent? Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent? Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?" ~ David Hume

I appreciate your comments. ~ M*W
No you lack understanding...

God doesn't do anything, God is unchanging, ever-existing, the source of the highest enjoyment, all the innumerable universes spring from him....

The reason good things aren't happening is because it isn't in your karma, which is why you exist in this universe/reality

Had it been in your karma, you would exist in a heavenly world where only good things happen...but it isn't

Therefore it is YOUR fault good things dont' happen, YOU'RE to blame

Therefore it is YOUR fault good things dont' happen, YOU'RE to blame

Well I guess that makes you feel better when you're beating your kids.

No you lack understanding...

God doesn't do anything, God is unchanging, ever-existing, the source of the highest enjoyment, all the innumerable universes spring from him....

The reason good things aren't happening is because it isn't in your karma, which is why you exist in this universe/reality

Had it been in your karma, you would exist in a heavenly world where only good things happen...but it isn't
*************
M*W: Again, you are playing the fortune teller (which, I understand, is totally against what you have been told to believe by christianity).

Therefore it is YOUR fault good things dont' happen, YOU'RE to blame
*************
M*W: When did I ever say "good things weren't happening to me?" Why do you assume what my karma is? You don't the hell know what my karma is, so STFU!

I am comfortable with what I believe (or disbelieve), and it has no impact on my life whatsoever. I experience emotion just like you... joy, pain, love, tenderness, caring, enrichment, comfort, contact, success, and to be nurtured as well as nurturing. There is no way that you could possibly know what I experience emotionally. Therefore, you ASS-U-ME what I am feeling, thinking, and experiencing, which is not based on my reality, because it is not my reality. It's people like you who convinced me that christianity is evil. After 20 some years, you people are still proving to me everyday that christianity destroys our innermost being. So, why should I expect anything better than that from you?

I think it safe to say that it is you who "lacks understanding."

*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote Needed Again in the Afternoon:

"Dear Lord, the gods have been good to me, and I am thankful. For the first time in my life everything is absolutely perfect just the way it is, and I won't ask for anything more. If that is okay, please give me absolutely no sign. Okay, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of milk and cookies. If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign. That will be done (gulp, gulp, munch, munch, munch)." ~ Homer Simpson

Therefore it is YOUR fault good things dont' happen, YOU'RE to blame

nothing is my fault because i didn't choose to exist.

*************
M*W: Again, you are playing the fortune teller (which, I understand, is totally against what you have been told to believe by christianity).
Actually, Jesus agrees...


*************
M*W: When did I ever say "good things weren't happening to me?" Why do you assume what my karma is? You don't the hell know what my karma is, so STFU!

I am comfortable with what I believe (or disbelieve), and it has no impact on my life whatsoever. I experience emotion just like you... joy, pain, love, tenderness, caring, enrichment, comfort, contact, success, and to be nurtured as well as nurturing. There is no way that you could possibly know what I experience emotionally. Therefore, you ASS-U-ME what I am feeling, thinking, and experiencing, which is not based on my reality, because it is not my reality. It's people like you who convinced me that christianity is evil. After 20 some years, you people are still proving to me everyday that christianity destroys our innermost being. So, why should I expect anything better than that from you?

I think it safe to say that it is you who "lacks understanding."

*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote Needed Again in the Afternoon:

"Dear Lord, the gods have been good to me, and I am thankful. For the first time in my life everything is absolutely perfect just the way it is, and I won't ask for anything more. If that is okay, please give me absolutely no sign. Okay, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of milk and cookies. If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign. That will be done (gulp, gulp, munch, munch, munch)." ~ Homer Simpson
I'm not assuming anything, except that good things do not ONLY happen to you, this is obvious

I am also only assuming karma, the thought-energy superimposed onto you is in play, this is an undeniable fact

nothing is my fault because i didn't choose to exist.

Yeah you did....that's why you're here...

*************
M*W: According to atheist David Hume, "Epicurus' old questions are yet unanswered. Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent? Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent? Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?" ~ David Hume

I appreciate your comments. ~ M*W
already dealt with this in a previous thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71803) - which didn't get such a rousing response

- in short, hume works under the misconception that this is the best of all possible worlds and the issue of evil is not being dealt with efficiently

Yeah you did....that's why you're here...
a being cannot choose to exist because in order to choose you have to exist.

that's why nothing is god's fault either, because he didn't choose to exist.

without existence there is no choice.

a being cannot choose to exist because in order to choose you have to exist.

that's why nothing is god's fault either, because he didn't choose to exist.

without existence there is no choice.

No, you chose to exist this way and form, otherwise you wouldn't exist in this way and form

No, you chose to exist this way and form, otherwise you wouldn't exist in this way and form

i didn't have a choice but to choose...

Then I would say that god allows evil to exist because in us he bestowed the freedom of choice and evil is not a construct of god directly, but a creation of the beings he created?

So which sinful humans are responsible for tsunamis. earthquakes and other natural disasters ?

If as many claim. god is omniscient, then he foresaw the way his creation would turn out but still allowed these awful things to happen. This makes him/her/it a sadistic bastard whose pastime is pulling the wings off celestial flies. If you want to adore such a being go right ahead.

Meanwhile, on 'is god willing bit not able, or able, but not willing', .. well it doesn't matter because god doesn't come across as being a nice guy from either outcome.

This of course is excused with 'god works in mysterious ways', if you call tsunamis and famines 'mysterious', that is.

Sorry, but I didn't read your post befor I entered mine. We are saying essentially the same thing.

It may be that some contributors to this thread are unaware of Leibnitz's argument that god created the best of all possible worlds, an argument I have been exposed to. The antidote is to read Voltaire's Candide. Bible thumpers won't read it because it is not a " holy book ".

Why are these theists so frightened of reason. Is it that they can't or wont use reason, preferring the soft option of accepting what is printed in a book of dubious origin. There are so many sects and cults, each reading the same book but arriving at different conclusions that a putative god would die laughing at them.

a being cannot choose to exist because in order to choose you have to exist.

that's why nothing is god's fault either, because he didn't choose to exist.

without existence there is no choice.

If god didn't choose to exist who or what brought him into existence ?

God can prevent evil, but permits it. This does not mean God is malevolent. Evil is part of God's creation. But, creation is not God. We come to know God through love, but God does not force us to love him. How can we come to love God without knowing evil? Our choice requires knowledge of evil.

I cannot remember when I last read such nonsense/ You simply must try harder. What is the point you are trying to make.?

Then I would say that god allows evil to exist because in us he bestowed the freedom of choice and evil is not a construct of god directly, but a creation of the beings he created?

So he created beings who could choose evil. What next, sit back and enjoy the spectacle ?

already dealt with this in a previous thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71803) - which didn't get such a rousing response

- in short, hume works under the misconception that this is the best of all possible worlds and the issue of evil is not being dealt with efficiently

Can you direct me to where Hume says this is the best of all possible worlds ?
Failing that, can you explain why you believe that he assumes this is the best of all possible worlds ?

No you lack understanding...

God doesn't do anything, God is unchanging, ever-existing, the source of the highest enjoyment, all the innumerable universes spring from him....

The reason good things aren't happening is because it isn't in your karma, which is why you exist in this universe/reality

Had it been in your karma, you would exist in a heavenly world where only good things happen...but it isn't

Therefore it is YOUR fault good things dont' happen, YOU'RE to blame

I envy you your knowledge. How did you come to know all these things ?

Actually, Jesus agrees...




I am also only assuming karma, the thought-energy superimposed onto you is in play, this is an undeniable fact

I deny it. Now prove me wrong.

Do they run courses in critical thinking in your area? I will gladly contribute to your costs if you agree to take one

In this context, good would be whatever God says is good. We do have to look at this through a theist's eyes, no?
That's one interpretation. Not the only one. I remember studying that question in philosophy. Does God do something because it's good, or is it good because God does it?

That's one interpretation. Not the only one. I remember studying that question in philosophy. Does God do something because it's good, or is it good because God does it?

Heh, you're right. It wasn't something we could give a final answer to in my philosophy class either. The next point in discussion was regarding God's instruction to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. I'm sure you know where that leads to.

My personal opinion is that it's good because God does it and not the other way around. For example, take the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah, or the flood. Those are cases of murder, but since God did it, it's not evil. It's considered justified. So I can only conclude that whatever God says is good is good.

Heh, you're right. It wasn't something we could give a final answer to in my philosophy class either. The next point in discussion was regarding God's instruction to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. I'm sure you know where that leads to.

My personal opinion is that it's good because God does it and not the other way around. For example, take the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah, or the flood. Those are cases of murder, but since God did it, it's not evil. It's considered justified. So I can only conclude that whatever God says is good is good.

Before you got round to discussing good and evil in your philosophy class did you discuss the more fundamental question of whethr god exists ,or was his existence taken for granted ? If you conclude that he exists, then you don't need to waste your time on the above topic. Assuming you are in a Christian environment you will have been told that god is good and that he can do no wrong. And that makes the question you were struggling with redundant,

If, on the other hand, you conclude that he doesn't exist, the question is also redundant.

Before you got round to discussing good and evil in your philosophy class did you discuss the more fundamental question of whethr god exists ,or was his existence taken for granted ? If you conclude that he exists, then you don't need to waste your time on the above topic. Assuming you are in a Christian environment you will have been told that god is good and that he can do no wrong. And that makes the question you were struggling with redundant,

If, on the other hand, you conclude that he doesn't exist, the question is also redundant.

The question is still worth struggling with because I feel it gives a better insight into the nature of certain theists.

And no, we didn't get around to discussing God's existence. I'm sure you can understand why.

Then I would say that god allows evil to exist because in us he bestowed the freedom of choice and evil is not a construct of god directly, but a creation of the beings he created?
naw that argument wont fly
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/vindicate.html ;)

The standard response would seem to be: without evil, how would you know what good is?
maybe you wouldnt know,so what?
without evil everyone would be good and happy whats wrong with that?

wouldnt loving father want his children to be always happy?

all human parents that love their kids would want the best for them,
so why wouldnt God?

My personal opinion is that it's good because God does it and not the other way around. For example, take the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah, or the flood. Those are cases of murder, but since God did it, it's not evil. It's considered justified. So I can only conclude that whatever God says is good is good.I'd argue the opposite. The God you're positing a irrational. His actions are arbitrary and capricious.

In my opinion, the creator of the universe, with all its beauty and magnificent structure, would not behave like a spoiled child or a tired parent proclaiming his actions are right "because I said so!"

A universe ruled by the God you suggest would be chaotic and random. Science could play no role in such a place. I believe in a God who makes the rules, then plays by them.

I'd argue the opposite. The God you're positing a irrational. His actions are arbitrary and capricious.

In my opinion, the creator of the universe, with all its beauty and magnificent structure, would not behave like a spoiled child or a tired parent proclaiming his actions are right "because I said so!"

A universe ruled by the God you suggest would be chaotic and random. Science could play no role in such a place. I believe in a God who makes the rules, then plays by them.

Well, like I said earlier in the thread, I'm referring specifically to the Abrahamic god. What you're referring to is something completely different and not something I have a comment on. :)

maybe you wouldnt know,so what?
without evil everyone would be good and happy whats wrong with that?

wouldnt loving father want his children to be always happy?

all human parents that love their kids would want the best for them,
so why wouldnt God?

Well again, this is me assuming the viewpoint of an Abrahamic theist. This is what I think would be the response:

If good is everything God tells us to do, then evil is doing something that God told us not to do. It's a form of disobeying. If you were to take away that ability to disobey, you take away free will. And so a theist can ask you "What's better? A parent that never lets his/her child out of the house to protect him/her from evil, or a parent that exposes his/her child to evil outside?"

But then of course my atheist brain would pop in and ask well he's going to take the free will away anyway, what was the point of it all? But that's a different topic. :shrug:

If god didn't choose to exist who or what brought him into existence ?

god has never been brought to existence because he has existed forever.

A lot of people dont understand the qestion of suffering and God's relation to it. Its very simple: suffering is required to evolve. If eveyrthing was ok and there was no suffering, there would be no evolution whatsoever. It is a vital part of evolution.

evolution is not a vital part of life. it would be better if god had created nothing, then nobody would have to suffer or evolve.

Better? Better for who?

You need to have some kind of struggle for evolution. If everything was the same and nobody had to look for food and everything was presented ona silver platter, there would be no need for evolution. So suffering is just a part of life.

Better? Better for who?

for everyone and everything.

problem: life causes suffering.
solution: kill all life and everything becomes perfect.

for everyone and everything.

problem: life causes suffering.
solution: kill all life and everything becomes perfect.

I don't consider that a problem though, so it wouldn't be better for me.

I don't consider that a problem though, so it wouldn't be better for me.

you think it's not a problem... currently. but in your next life it will be a problem.

and even if there was no problems, nothing can be better than nothing, so it was stupid for god to create anything... if he had a choice (which he obviously didnt)

How can something that doesn't exist create anything?

I only used the above to come on here and get free publicity for my Unicorn Dung, It wonderful for roses. You won't be able to see it, smell it or feel it but don't let that deter you. I send full instruction with every pack.

Slightly cheaper, but also very good is bullshit. The price varies. I think the Jehovah's Witnesses offer the best value for money.

A lot of people dont understand the qestion of suffering and God's relation to it. Its very simple: suffering is required to evolve. If eveyrthing was ok and there was no suffering, there would be no evolution whatsoever. It is a vital part of evolution.
*************
M*W: You call it "suffering," I call it "adaptation." There's a difference.

If there were a god or some kind of creator-being, hopefully it would have been omniscient enough to create us without our having to suffer. Otherwise, our creator is neither willing nor capable to do his job of creating us.

The last time I heard someone give me the "suffering" spiel was a bi-polar schizophrenic who was locked in a rubber room. He told me that it was god's will to create us to suffer in this life. I said to him, "Yeah, right," and then I injected him with a syringe of thorazine, and he wasn't suffering anymore.

*************
M*W: You call it "suffering," I call it "adaptation." There's a difference.

If there were a god or some kind of creator-being, hopefully it would have been omniscient enough to create us without our having to suffer. Otherwise, our creator is neither willing nor capable to do his job of creating us.

the issue is that we are not created with omnipotence, etc

IOW we are not created as god .... and there are very good reasons for that

;)

*************
M*W: You call it "suffering," I call it "adaptation." There's a difference.

Through suffering or or experiencing pain we adapt. What happens if theres constant floods? We build dikes. What happens if we keep getting stung by insects? We make protective clothing. We adapt because we suffer from certain things and that allows us to move on.

If there were a god or some kind of creator-being, hopefully it would have been omniscient enough to create us without our having to suffer. Otherwise, our creator is neither willing nor capable to do his job of creating us.

The creation is there. Its just to evolve.

The last time I heard someone give me the "suffering" spiel was a bi-polar schizophrenic who was locked in a rubber room. He told me that it was god's will to create us to suffer in this life. I said to him, "Yeah, right," and then I injected him with a syringe of thorazine, and he wasn't suffering anymore.

Im not saying thats what life is all about. Im saying that sometimes in life we suffer and when people suffer they make sure it doesnt happen again. Would there have been any progress if there wasnt any danger in using the old methods of travel and medicine for example? No, there wouldnt have been. Just like evolution on a biological scale needs to lead to some kind of improvement on the previous workings, the suffering in the world helps us to move on and to a better world.

It is needed otherwise we would never make any progress.

you think it's not a problem... currently. but in your next life it will be a problem.

and even if there was no problems, nothing can be better than nothing, so it was stupid for god to create anything... if he had a choice (which he obviously didnt)



How do you know "he", if he exists OBVIOUSLY hadn'y a choice. Pleas give us an argument, not a statement to bolster an opinion whichothers may not share.

Through suffering or or experiencing pain we adapt. What happens if theres constant floods? We build dikes. What happens if we keep getting stung by insects? We make protective clothing. We adapt because we suffer from certain things and that allows us to move on.



The creation is there. Its just to evolve.



Im not saying thats what life is all about. Im saying that sometimes in life we suffer and when people suffer they make sure it doesnt happen again. Would there have been any progress if there wasnt any danger in using the old methods of travel and medicine for example? No, there wouldnt have been. Just like evolution on a biological scale needs to lead to some kind of improvement on the previous workings, the suffering in the world helps us to move on and to a better world.

It is needed otherwise we would never make any progress.


So tell us how a person who is horribly deformed learn and move on ? My daughter suffered from a ghastly disease( MND) from age 23 to 33 when she moved on...to a hole in the ground. The only love she experienced was that of the dedicated medical staff who looked after her during her last four years
when she was almost totally paralyzed.

I'm not playing a sympathy card, just making a point about the way life is. In the care home where my daughter spent her last two years I saw some horrific sights which haunt me to this day.

Looking at the state of the world, if I believed in a creator, it would be a malevolent, sadistic one who got a perverse kick out of watching us suffer.

the issue is that we are not created with omnipotence, etc

IOW we are not created as god .... and there are very good reasons for that

;)

Please give us the good reasons . I know of none

the issue is that we are not created with omnipotence, etc

IOW we are not created as god .... and there are very good reasons for that

;)
*************
M*W: And what would those reasons be?
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote of the Day:

"I have too much respect for the idea of God to hold him responsible for such an absurd world." ~ Georges Duhamel

What happens if theres constant floods? We build dikes. What happens if we keep getting stung by insects? We make protective clothing. We adapt because we suffer from certain things and that allows us to move on.

.

I don't suppose you'll bother but can I suggest you read Candide bu Voltaire.
Candide is being tutored by a philosopher who has agrees with Leibnitz's view that god created the best of all possible worlds. The book abounds in examples such as the one you give above.

Voltaire would most likely have included your floods and dikes argument had he been aware of it. But he does put similar arguments into the mouth of Pangloss, Candide's mentor. For example, Pangloss explains why god gave us noses; in his divine wisdom he foresaw that we would need a support for our eyeglasses. I won't spoil your fun by telling you any more. I'm sure you can't wait to read it.

One thing puzzles me. As I understand it. the purpose of a dyke is to prevent floods. It follows that if god sent no floods there would be no need for us to build dykes. This would give us more time to spend in worship.This explains two things about god.

1 He is humble and does not want to be excessively worshipped.

2. He has a senseof humour of a kind. I can see him sitting on his throne thinking what he can do next. How about a plague of locusts ? That would teach people to eat less; more obeisance less obesity.

A Message From Our Sponsors

Don't delay, rush to a fine bookstore and get yourself a copy of Candide. It's a unique book. 27.5 % more unique than Tom Sawyer

Or how about writing a bookof your own. I have a title for you:

"101 Ways to Put the Cart Before the Horse"

*************
M*W: And what would those reasons be?
it becomes philosophically difficult to entertain how numerous independent omimax personalities can co-exist

[preaching deleted]

Please give us the good reasons . I know of none
polytheism (or having numerous omnipotent gods) makes being the cause of all causes (an attribute of god) untenable

polytheism (or having numerous omnipotent gods) makes being the cause of all causes (an attribute of god) untenable




Thank you for explaining what polytheism means. I have often wondered ,but not sufficiently so as to motivate me to look it up in a dictionary.

How and by whom has it been established that what you call god is the cause of all causes ?

There is also the problem as to why I should stop believing A because it makes some other position , B, untenable. Wouldn't a a ploytheist argue that your position is untenable. How would you seek to refute his argument ?

it becomes philosophically difficult to entertain how numerous independent omimax personalities can co-exist




]
Are suggesting that if one is faced with a difficult philosophical problem , the best course of action is to throw in the towel ?

Thank you for explaining what polytheism means. I have often wondered ,but not sufficiently so as to motivate me to look it up in a dictionary.

How and by whom has it been established that what you call god is the cause of all causes ?
in short, all information about god is established by qualified persons (saintly persons) - ie persons who are not merely moralists or philosophers but who have actually attained an elevated state of consciousness - commonly such information is also compiled into scripture

There is also the problem as to why I should stop believing A because it makes some other position , B, untenable.
generally if persons finds believing something that is untenable ok (like say that a circle has three sides) that is a problem in itself (anyone vaguely familiar with the newspaper headlines from the past 6 years can understand why religion that departs from reason is a cause of concern )

Wouldn't a a ploytheist argue that your position is untenable. How would you seek to refute his argument ?
well first they would have to actually offer an argument before a response could be suggested

Are suggesting that if one is faced with a difficult philosophical problem , the best course of action is to throw in the towel ?
only if it is indicated by use of a higher philosophy that one is operating out of a lower philosophy - and even then its not so much an issue of throwing in the towel but rejecting the lower to accept the higher

in short, all information about god is established by qualified persons (saintly persons) - ie persons who are not merely moralists or philosophers but who have actually attained an elevated state of consciousness - commonly such information is also compiled into scripture

generally if persons finds believing something that is untenable ok (like say that a circle has three sides) that is a problem in itself (anyone vaguely familiar with the newspaper headlines from the past 6 years can understand why religion that departs from reason is a cause of concern )


well first they would have to actually offer an argument before a response could be suggested


only if it is indicated by use of a higher philosophy that one is operating out of a lower philosophy - and even then its not so much an issue of throwing in the towel but rejecting the lower to accept the higher




Saintly people and elevated states of consciousness. Who confers saintliness upon them ? How would I recognize such a person, given that my criteria might be different from yours.I might conclude that such people were deluded.


Elevated states: That is a claim often made by people who take drugs. How about the tribes who eat peyote ( mescalin ) and subsequently have visions, just to take one of numerous examples. I can cite dozens more if you wish. Are you not just saying that you choose to believe some but not others, or do you regard all who make such claims as saintly.

Religion departing from reason: Many would say that all religion departs from reason because the available evidence suggests that religion is based on blind faith.

Offering an argument: It is sufficient for someone to say " I don't believe you, now prove me wrong " As you have made claims about the nature of god, the onus is on you to support those statements with evidence.

Higher and lower philosophy: I am not aware that there are different levels of philosophy. Please explain what you mean. No prizes for guessing who gets to define which is higher and which lower.

I think you are practising what I would call "PHILOSOPHISTRY "

Looking at the state of the world, if I believed in a creator, it would be a malevolent, sadistic one who got a perverse kick out of watching us suffer.

It does surprise me that people haven't really discussed the gnostic view in this thread--that the god/demiurge/devil who created this world allows evil to exist because he is himself evil or at least highly imperfect. It does seem to make a lot more intuitive sense than the whole garden of eden story.

How do you know "he", if he exists OBVIOUSLY hadn'y a choice. Pleas give us an argument, not a statement to bolster an opinion whichothers may not share.
nobody can choose their own existence, not even god, because you have to exist to be able to choose. and if you don't choose your own existence, nothing in your life is your choice.

It does surprise me that people haven't really discussed the gnostic view in this thread--that the god/demiurge/devil who created this world allows evil to exist because he is himself evil or at least highly imperfect. It does seem to make a lot more intuitive sense than the whole garden of eden story

Or how about the stance taken by a deist. God created the world but he takes no further interest in it ?

nobody can choose their own existence, not even god, because you have to exist to be able to choose. and if you don't choose your own existence, nothing in your life is your choice.



So who exactly made the choice that god should exist ?

Or how about the stance taken by a deist. God created the world but he takes no further interest in it ?

That was actually my first response on this thread--if God exists, we're probably too insignificant for him/her/it to bother about.

[QUOTE=maxg;1633022]That was actually my first response on this thread--if God exists, we're probably too insignificant for him/her/it to bother about.

[/QUOTE

Well said, if you will allow me to say so.

If there is a creator, I can't imagine why he botherd . What did he lack that he needed to create this mess ?

There is a hint in the Bible that he got it wrong first time.So what did he do ? He drowned all humans with the exception of Noah and co. before going back to the drawing board. They say practice makes perfect The available evidence suggests that he didn't get enough.

So, the end might well be nigh. He might be planning to try again....third time lucky !

So who exactly made the choice that god should exist ?
nobody

nobody




So where was he before he came into existence ?

Were you born clever or did you have to work at it ?

He always existed

[QUOTE=Nikelodeon;1633271]He always existed[


/QUOTE]

How do you know that ?

I dont. But its possible.

I dont. But its possible.



Do you often talk about things of which you know nothing ? Nexttime , try a little humilityy and qualify your answewr with something like....I believe.

The corollary of what you say is that he might not have come into existence at all. Why choose one possibility over another ?

And Lo the white men stepped from their ships and saw the Injuns, heathens every one. Some white men were afraid. Some white men decided to save the Injuns. And some Injuns were confused by the odd tone of voice the white men used when bringing the messages from their great books.

So where was he before he came into existence ?

nowhere.

Were you born clever or did you have to work at it ?

i'm not especially clever, but i had to work at it.

And Lo the white men stepped from their ships and saw the Injuns, heathens every one. Some white men were afraid. Some white men decided to save the Injuns. And some Injuns were confused by the odd tone of voice the white men used when bringing the messages from their great books



But a wise old Injun said : " White man speak with forked tongue. He knows not of Gitchimanito".

nowhere.



i'm not especially clever, but i had to work at it.



So please vouchsafe unto us the kowledge of how something ariseth from nothing. For verily I say unto thee we are sorely troubled in our ignorance.

So please vouchsafe unto us the kowledge of how something ariseth from nothing. For verily I say unto thee we are sorely troubled in our ignorance.

without ignorance (nothing, emptiness) there is no space for knowledge (everything, something).

in the beginning there was one infinite nothing. 1 ∞ 0. nothing wasn't empty because it was filled with infinity. infinite possibilities.

zero, infinity and "the one" are the Real Trinity. zero and infinity are the parents of "the one" who creates everything.

without ignorance (nothing, emptiness) there is no space for knowledge (everything, something).

in the beginning there was one infinite nothing. 1 ∞ 0. nothing wasn't empty because it was filled with infinity. infinite possibilities.

zero, infinity and "the one" are the Real Trinity. zero and infinity are the parents of "the one" who creates everything.



How does one come by such knowledge ? I have read of the "plenum void" Is that what you mean ?

And Lo the white men stepped from their ships and saw the Injuns, heathens every one. Some white men were afraid. Some white men decided to save the Injuns. And some Injuns were confused by the odd tone of voice the white men used when bringing the messages from their great books.
**************
M*W: You are talking about my ancestors!

without ignorance (nothing, emptiness) there is no space for knowledge (everything, something).

in the beginning there was one infinite nothing. 1 ∞ 0. nothing wasn't empty because it was filled with infinity. infinite possibilities.

zero, infinity and "the one" are the Real Trinity. zero and infinity are the parents of "the one" who creates everything.



What sort of space does knowledge require ?

What on earth is an "infinite nothing". The position of a vacuum can be determined by its co-ordinates so, at least in theory, we could define the position of your nothing. Are you aware that mathematicans have moved on from your idea of infinity. It is by no meansas simple as you imagine,

If you wish to couch your answers in mathematical terms please do so in the form of equations which I can verify or show to be in error,

Talk of zero, infinity and the one being the trinity is devoid ofany meaning

**************
M*W: You are talking about my ancestors!
Yes, I have always thought that the Europeans had such a lack of awareness about their own psyche. They often tried to convert - or forced conversion - to save people, but the attitude had so much hatred in it. Jamming this book that at least from Jesus has some emphasis on love into someone else is not love or loving. And the way they viewed the Natives did not jibe with what they claimed they were doing.

This was what I meant about 'odd tone of voice'. If the tone of discourse does not match the claimed intent of the discourse one could or perhaps should wonder what the real motivation is. As I would guess many of your ascestors wondered.

What sort of space does knowledge require ?

ignorance.

What on earth is an "infinite nothing".

the nothing where everything came from... and the nothing is obviously infinite because there's nothing outside it.

If you wish to couch your answers in mathematical terms please do so in the form of equations which I can verify or show to be in error,

you know how math works: 6/3=2 because 2x3=6. therefore: 0/0=any number because any number times 0 is 0. same thing happens with infinity because zero and infinity are one.

anyway... that's how everything came from nothing. nothing divided infinite times so that it became anything (universe). even today, cells still keep dividing and humans keep multiplying.

Myles
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
in short, all information about god is established by qualified persons (saintly persons) - ie persons who are not merely moralists or philosophers but who have actually attained an elevated state of consciousness - commonly such information is also compiled into scripture

generally if persons finds believing something that is untenable ok (like say that a circle has three sides) that is a problem in itself (anyone vaguely familiar with the newspaper headlines from the past 6 years can understand why religion that departs from reason is a cause of concern )


well first they would have to actually offer an argument before a response could be suggested


only if it is indicated by use of a higher philosophy that one is operating out of a lower philosophy - and even then its not so much an issue of throwing in the towel but rejecting the lower to accept the higher


”
Saintly people and elevated states of consciousness. Who confers saintliness upon them ?
I think you misunderstand - I was talking about saintliness as a "state of being" as opposed to an official designation

How would I recognize such a person, given that my criteria might be different from yours.
first of all the criteria is not dependent on either you or me - suppose we were talking about the qualities of a person who has drunk water after feeling thirsty - IOW definitions of states of being is not an arbitrary category

I might conclude that such people were deluded.
if you stand outside the normative descriptions, your personal opinions have no value - much in the same way as the opinions of persons who lie outside the normative descriptions of physics (like high school drop outs for eg) don't have much of an impact on quantum mechanics


Elevated states: That is a claim often made by people who take drugs.
I guess to seriously investigate the use of the term you would have to see if it has any other application outside of drug users (after all, I have also heard drug users talk of seeing colliding atoms too, but fortunately a foundational understanding of physics enables me to put such claims in a proper context)

How about the tribes who eat peyote ( mescalin ) and subsequently have visions, just to take one of numerous examples. I can cite dozens more if you wish. Are you not just saying that you choose to believe some but not others, or do you regard all who make such claims as saintly.
there are also numerous descriptions of elevated states given in scriptures
eg

NoI 1: A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.

Religion departing from reason: Many would say that all religion departs from reason because the available evidence suggests that religion is based on blind faith.
as indicated above (the high school drop out vs phsyics) , if the persons making such claims lie outside the normative descriptions (ie "if you want to see X you must perform B"), that in itself is an unreasonable position

Offering an argument: It is sufficient for someone to say " I don't believe you, now prove me wrong " As you have made claims about the nature of god, the onus is on you to support those statements with evidence.
evidence?
is it possible to talk of evidence without coming to a certain standard of qualification?
perhaps you mean logic or reason?

Higher and lower philosophy: I am not aware that there are different levels of philosophy. Please explain what you mean. No prizes for guessing who gets to define which is higher and which lower.
its really a no brainer

if someone has the philosophy of filling their own belly that is lower than say someone who's philosophy is that of filling the belly of themselves and their family members (since it deals with a greater "slice" of reality"


I think you are practising what I would call "PHILOSOPHISTRY "
now that I have explained myself a little, do you still think so?

ignorance.



the nothing where everything came from... and the nothing is obviously infinite because there's nothing outside it.



you know how math works: 6/3=2 because 2x3=6. therefore: 0/0=any number because any number times 0 is 0. same thing happens with infinity because zero and infinity are one.

anyway... that's how everything came from nothing. nothing divided infinite times so that it became anything (universe). even today, cells still keep dividing and humans keep multiplying.


I am totally confused by your argument.We have a symbol for nothing which we write as 0. You say 0/0 = any number . This makes no sense. We do not divide anything by 0. When you write 0/0 how would you describe what it is you are attempting ? My description would be that you are dividing nothing by nothing , which means you are not carrying out any division at all. So to write 0/0 is meaningless.

You next suggest that infinity and zero are one. How did you arrive at this conclusion ? We use different symbols to describe them for the simple reason that they are DIFFERENT from each other.

As to cells multiplying, they multiply exponentially. It is not a question of nothing being divide an infinite number of times. It is a process whereby 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 4, 4 bcomes 8 and so on. We can write the result like this 1, 2 , 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 , 512 and so on . There is a shorter way of writing this series but I don't think I can find the symblos on the keyboard.

The point you need to note is that nothing ( an imaginary cell ) cannot divide into 2 nothings. It would give us a series 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, and so on. This is , of course totally meaningless. I have just used it to illustrate my point

So if you are interested in how cells multiply, try starting with 1 as I have illustrated above. Starting with nothing will get you nothing. There are no free lunches.

My impression is that you have misunderstood something you have read somewhere. If you wish to suggest other ways of supporting you point, I will be pleased to hear from you and examine your argement.

[QUOTE=Grantywanty;1634833]Yes, I have always thought that the Europeans had such a lack of awareness about their own psyche. They often tried to convert - or forced conversion - to save people, but the attitude had so much hatred in it. Jamming this book that at least from Jesus has some emphasis on love into someone else is not love or loving. And the way they viewed the Natives did not jibe with what they claimed they were doing.

This was what I meant about 'odd tone of voice'. If the tone of discourse does not match the claimed intent of the discourse one could or perhaps should wonder what the real motivation is. As I would guess many of your ascestors wondered

.[/QUOTE

I think you are quite wrong. The Incas, for examople, were put to death because they refused to believe in the one true God. People like you would have us believe that they were butchered because they had lots of yellow metal. Have you no respect for the truth ?

Myles

I think you misunderstand - I was talking about saintliness as a "state of being" as opposed to an official designation

first of all the criteria is not dependent on either you or me - suppose we were talking about the qualities of a person who has drunk water after feeling thirsty - IOW definitions of states of being is not an arbitrary category


if you stand outside the normative descriptions, your personal opinions have no value - much in the same way as the opinions of persons who lie outside the normative descriptions of physics (like high school drop outs for eg) don't have much of an impact on quantum mechanics


I guess to seriously investigate the use of the term you would have to see if it has any other application outside of drug users (after all, I have also heard drug users talk of seeing colliding atoms too, but fortunately a foundational understanding of physics enables me to put such claims in a proper context)

there are also numerous descriptions of elevated states given in scriptures
eg

NoI 1: A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.


as indicated above (the high school drop out vs phsyics) , if the persons making such claims lie outside the normative descriptions (ie "if you want to see X you must perform B"), that in itself is an unreasonable position

evidence?
is it possible to talk of evidence without coming to a certain standard of qualification?
perhaps you mean logic or reason?

its really a no brainer

if someone has the philosophy of filling their own belly that is lower than say someone who's philosophy is that of filling the belly of themselves and their family members (since it deals with a greater "slice" of reality"


now that I have explained myself a little, do you still think so?





You are not practising what I called PHILOSOPHISTRY; you are simply talking nonsense.

I won't deal with all your points because, to be honest, I don't know what you are talking about.

Saintliness is a quality. So, the question remains: how do we recognize someone who is saintly. Never mind normative/ schnormative. How is such a person recognized ? You say saintliness is not conferred , that is is a state of being. Don't you see that the recognition of such a state of being is tantamount to conferring saintliness upon those who are in such a state ? You have not answered my question. You have just re-phrased it.



As to higher and lower philosophy, I cannot help wondering whether you are joking. The commonly accepted definition of philosophy is love of wisdom/ knowledge. It has nothing to do with the numberof burgers one consumes.

You are quite at liberty to start your own branch of philosophy and call it something like the philosophy of ingestion. digestion and elimination. Just don't expect many people to discuss it with you.

With the best possible will in the world I cannot escape the belief that you are very confused. I freely admit that I am after reading your post. I do not wish to be unkind but I cannot think how else to put it

You are not practising what I called PHILOSOPHISTRY; you are simply talking nonsense.

I won't deal with all your points because, to be honest, I don't know what you are talking about.

Saintliness is a quality. So, the question remains: how do we recognize someone who is saintly. Never mind normative/ schnormative. How is such a person recognized ? You say saintliness is not conferred , that is is a state of being. Don't you see that the recognition of such a state of being is tantamount to conferring saintliness upon those who are in such a state ? You have not answered my question. You have just re-phrased it.
already gave you an indication (a normative description to be precise - IOW how a saintly person normally behaves)
:shrug:




As to higher and lower philosophy, I cannot help wondering whether you are joking. The commonly accepted definition of philosophy is love of wisdom/ knowledge. It has nothing to do with the numberof burgers one consumes.
there is a wisdom required for burger consumption - its just not a particularly high grade variety
;)
You are quite at liberty to start your own branch of philosophy and call it something like the philosophy of ingestion. digestion and elimination. Just don't expect many people to discuss it with you.
actually I was indicating the philosophy of only being concerned with oneself and how it stands as inferior in comparison to a more broader picture (like say allowing the needs, interests and concerns of other living entities to enter the picture)

With the best possible will in the world I cannot escape the belief that you are very confused. I freely admit that I am after reading your post. I do not wish to be unkind but I cannot think how else to put it
From my side I can't understand why you are having such difficulty with issues that most people could get straight off the bat - eg, higher/lower philosophy, providing a normative description in response to a query how something is qualitatively recognized, etc etc
:shrug:

My post:

“
Originally Posted by Grantywanty
Yes, I have always thought that the Europeans had such a lack of awareness about their own psyche. They often tried to convert - or forced conversion - to save people, but the attitude had so much hatred in it. Jamming this book that at least from Jesus has some emphasis on love into someone else is not love or loving. And the way they viewed the Natives did not jibe with what they claimed they were doing.

This was what I meant about 'odd tone of voice'. If the tone of discourse does not match the claimed intent of the discourse one could or perhaps should wonder what the real motivation is. As I would guess many of your ascestors wondered

Myles' response.
I think you are quite wrong. The Incas, for examople, were put to death because they refused to believe in the one true God. People like you would have us believe that they were butchered because they had lots of yellow metal. Have you no respect for the truth ?
”

How odd Myles.
Please be specific about what I said that was wrong.
Here I thought I was being critical of Christians, admittedly focussing on less genocidal aspects of their behavior, but certainly not excluding them.
Please tell me how what I said indicated I want to deny the horrendous Church approved behavior of European Christians in relation to Native Americans. I believed and made public my opinions that European colonizers with Church participation and approval acted as abominably as possible in relation to Native Americans long before it was fashionable to be critical in this way and I took a decent amount of shit for it.
So please let me know how I am now saying the opposite.


People like you...

People like me?
Please let me know a little more about my category, Myles.

I think you are quite wrong. The Incas, for example, were put to death because they refused to believe in the one true God. People like you would have us believe that they were butchered because they had lots of yellow metal. Have you no respect for the truth ?

Your post has created a logical fallacy with a couple of complex questions. First, you accuse the other post with "people like you" ad hominem, which presupposes without demonstration that the other poster *is* a member of this, as yet unknown, categorization.

Your second complex question is in the final question, "have you no respect for the truth?", which makes the assumption that the truth is as you say it is.

However, the evidence reveals that there were duel motivations for the destruction of the Inca people. Gold being the primary motive since it was the driving reason for the Spanish being in the New World to begin with. The religious excuses of convert or die was employed by the Spanish to justify their atrocities, which the even the Spanish probably recognized as wrong on face of it.

From my side I can't understand why you are having such difficulty
:shrug:



You are quite right. If only you had told me that I would recognize a saint when I saw someone walking on water. How simple it all is , now that you have explained normative, existential relativism.

You have also made me aware of how wise my little dog is when he eats his dinner. I wrongly thought he was just a greedy little bastard. I have changed his name from Fido to Saint Phideau. I shall be in your debt for ever. You have a wonderul way with words, for anyone who understands you.

My post:


Hi, this is not a joke.

When I was in my early twenties I read a book about the history of the inquisition/. The whole business sickened me but one instance referred to caused me to cry, something I am not in the habit of doing.

It concerned a man who was burned at the stake for believing that god's love is so great that in the end god will forgive Satan. What an understanding of god compared to that of his persecutors !


I think that says it all about bigots of every persuasion

Originally Posted by Myles
Hi, this is not a joke.

When I was in my early twenties I read a book about the history of the inquisition/. The whole business sickened me but one instance referred to caused me to cry, something I am not in the habit of doing.

It concerned a man who was burned at the stake for believing that god's love is so great that in the end god will forgive Satan. What an understanding of god compared to that of his persecutors !


I think that says it all about bigots of every persuasion

This is not a joke:
you were rude, presumably misread my post, and referred to 'people like you', a nice bigoted phrase if I ever heard one.
Now you are talking about the Inquisition and bigotry. If this relates to my posts somehow please make it clear.

This is not a joke:
you were rude, presumably misread my post, and referred to 'people like you', a nice bigoted phrase if I ever heard one.
Now you are talking about the Inquisition and bigotry. If this relates to my posts somehow please make it clear.



How could you nisunderstand my meaning. Do you honestly believe I could be serious in writing to you as I did ?
You talked about white men and their big books and the Injuns. M W said something like " thats my people you are talking about:" You talked about te white man's psyche, etc , whch I understood to mean their arrogance in attempting to push their views.

An earlier post of yours said something to the effect that M W was a closet pantheist. I had a go at you by saying that the remarks M W made would have equally been said by an atheist or a deist. I also said that the word closet suggested a degree of insincerity,,, Ring a bell ? You replied that it was not meant seriously; it was a joke. I missed the point.

As to the rest, I believed I was elaborating on te sentiments you had expressed concerning white men and Injuns. I assume you know what the Spaniards did to the Incas was motivated bt greed rather than a desire to convert them to Christianity. There were of course some Jesuits bearing crosses, but that didn't help the Incas very much becaus said Jesuits stood by while they were being slaughtered. That was the whole point of what I was getting at. I was talking tongue in cheek, believing you would understand my meaning.

As far as the Inquisition is concerned, the Jesuits were heavily involved Remember Savonarola. Again, people were put to deatrh for all sorts of reasons but the motives were based on greed and religious bigotry. Are you aware that if someone was declared a heretic . his estate was forfeit to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. There was also a payoff for whover might have betrayed him. So. business as usual.

The story I told you about the poor wretch being burned at the stake because he believed God's love was so great that he would forgive Satan is, I believe, an historical fact. I read it in a book on the Inquisition many years ago. And, yes , it did make me cry when I pictured what was done to that man. His concept of God was far greater than than that of the bigots who put him to death.

I have visited Pastor Phelps site and also seen a documentary on him. Can you imagine what he woud do to the people he calls fags or faggots ifhe had his way.

To me all these things are one of a piece.

It grieves me that you could possibly think that I regard you as a biggot.

Best bet I think is no more jokes, no more misunderstandings

PS the post of yours I am referring to is no. 101, Injuns etc.

Originally Posted by Myles

As to the rest, I believed I was elaborating on te sentiments you had expressed concerning white men and Injuns. I assume you know what the Spaniards did to the Incas was motivated bt greed rather than a desire to convert them to Christianity. There were of course some Jesuits bearing crosses, but that didn't help the Incas very much becaus said Jesuits stood by while they were being slaughtered. That was the whole point of what I was getting at. I was talking tongue in cheek, believing you would understand my meaning.

Yes, I thought your post showed an exceptional, for you, ignorance of what happened between the Spanish and the Incas, but given that it seemed like I was being called an apologist for Christianity, I thought to mention any of the issues would only lead to more accusations. I was glad when Skinwalker opened the door.

I recently read 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann 2005 which is an excellent book that gathers much of the most recent research into the cultures that existed in the Americas before Columbus's arrival. Most of this research has significantly increased estimates of population levels. It also points to vastly more complex and sweeping alteration of the Americas by the natives. They seem to have been landscape artists at a level unknown perhaps even back in the Old World. Further the larger civilizations seem to have been developing a learned class with its own philosophers, for example, who had different dominant metaphors then their Old World counterparts. In other words, a open and respectful interchange might have been incredibly fruitful. The research is also tending to estimate the deaths due to smallpox and other diseases to be much higher even than similar estimates in the late 20th century. This also crippled any potential cultural exchange not already prevented by bigotry and violence.

There was one lovely section where the Incan - I believe - and Spanish priests meet to negotiate conversion. I will leave this as a teaser.

As far as conversion as a motivation, I also think that land and resources were the primary motivation for how Europeans interacted with NAs. Just as the last couple of Gulf Wars are hardly about spreading democracy or whatever the latest justification is.

I do think it is an interesting phenomenon: the conversion urge. I am sure there are some softer Christians out there whose really are fearful about the heathens' eternal souls. But much of it seems to have about as much concern behind it as the nuns had about me in the various punishments they devised to help me understand authority or to be a 'good little person'.

The split in the psyche that allows obvious hate and disrespect to have a higher motive.

Not that any of this is restricted to the religious, but given the incredibly noble claims being made the contrast is stark there.

To proselytize almost guarantees a hypocritical stance.

I am glad you turned out not to have thought I was a bigot.

You are quite right. If only you had told me that I would recognize a saint when I saw someone walking on water. How simple it all is , now that you have explained normative, existential relativism.
not sure where you got the whole walking on water bit from (particularly since there are indications of personalities in other scriptures who possessed mystic perfections - such as walking on water - but who were thoroughly atheistic ... certainly doesn't appear to rally as a normative description to say the least)
:shrug:


You have also made me aware of how wise my little dog is when he eats his dinner. I wrongly thought he was just a greedy little bastard.
even greed operates out of a particular philosophy - albeit not a high grade one

I have changed his name from Fido to Saint Phideau. I shall be in your debt for ever.
if you want to make low grade philosophy a regal affair, that's your business
:shrug:

You have a wonderul way with words, for anyone who understands you.
I guess comprehension arises after one displays even a small ability to listen
:shrug:

So tell us how a person who is horribly deformed learn and move on ? My daughter suffered from a ghastly disease( MND) from age 23 to 33 when she moved on...to a hole in the ground. The only love she experienced was that of the dedicated medical staff who looked after her during her last four years when she was almost totally paralyzed.
Looking at the state of the world, if I believed in a creator, it would be a malevolent, sadistic one who got a perverse kick out of watching us suffer
One thing puzzles me. As I understand it. the purpose of a dyke is to prevent floods. It follows that if god sent no floods there would be no need for us to build dykes. This would give us more time to spend in worship.This explains two things about god.
1 He is humble and does not want to be excessively worshipped.
2. He has a senseof humour of a kind. I can see him sitting on his throne thinking what he can do next. How about a plague of locusts ? That would teach people to eat less; more obeisance less obesity.

First of all, my condoleances.

As most people know by now I am a Muslim. And let me post here a piece which I agree with and which can better put into words what I mean:

Moderator Edit: Approximately 4500 words deleted for two reasons: 1) it is plagiarism and the original source wasn't cited; 2) it was preaching. The original text is found here: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_6.html
If interested in what our Muslim preacher has to say, please click there and read it in its original context. To our Muslim preacher, future such posts will be simply deleted and consideration will be given for banning should you continue to post large tracts of material copy/pasted from elsewhere in a manner that is clearly preaching. Consider this an official warning

And to mods: I am not preaching, I am merely clarifiying my stance with the help of a short piece.

not sure where you got the whole walking on water bit from (particularly since there are indications of personalities in other scriptures who possessed mystic perfections - such as walking on water - but who were thoroughly atheistic ... certainly doesn't appear to rally as a normative description to say the least)
:shrug:



even greed operates out of a particular philosophy - albeit not a high grade one


if you want to make low grade philosophy a regal affair, that's your business
:shrug:


I guess comprehension arises after one displays even a small ability to listen
:shrug:

I


I agree with everything you say. I guess a sense of humour comes from realizing that the world is full of "experts" arguing with other " experts " over what each KNOWS to be true.

I'm having problems with my little dog. He just won't believe he is a philosopher,but he likes his new name.He may have ben a mule in a previous existence. We all know how stubborn they can be.

[QUOTE=Grantywanty;

There was one lovely section where the Incan - I believe - and Spanish priests meet to negotiate conversion. I will leave this as a teaser.



But much of it seems to have about as much concern behind it as the nuns had about me in the various punishments they devised to help me understand authority or to be a 'good little person'.

The split in the psyche that allows obvious hate and disrespect to have a higher motive.

[/QUOTE]

I cannot understand the urge to convert though I can guess at what might lie behind it. If you think the nuns were bad , you should have tried the Christian Brothers at my primary school. I will not dwell on my experience but, I wrote the following couplet which came to me in my twenties as I was musing on my experiences. I will leave it as a teaser for you.

Though preaching Paul, they made us keep our toys ;
The Christian Brothers cultivate OLD BOYS.

Because I'm an atheist, people tend to assume I believe the world would be a better place without religion. I believe no such thing. We would just have what I regard as another form of tribalism. "A rose by any other name ....."

Have you heard the story of the old tribal chief talking to a tourist on his tropical island. The chied said: " Once upon a time we caught enough fish to eat every day. We collected a few coconuts and so on.So we had lots of time to talk, play games or simply enjoy the sunshine. Then the missionaries came , told us about their god and explained that he put us here to labour and to pray. Now my people work 12 hours a day in the fish -canning factory while the missionaries sit on the beach. "

I'm sure you would get on like a house on fire if you were to met my younger son. He is a practising Buddhist who has a less jaundiced view of society than I have. He spends most wekends at a monastery in Wales. The monastery is run by Tibetans but they are happyto allow my son's group to share their premises, although his group practises a Chinese version of Zen. If we can put aside the cynical view that the Tibetans allow this because they receive a contribution to the cost of running their centre, we are looking at true religious tolerance.

I sometimes wonder under what circumstances this tolerance would break down. The arrangement has held good for the past eight years.

The question is still worth struggling with because I feel it gives a better insight into the nature of certain theists.

And no, we didn't get around to discussing God's existence. I'm sure you can understand why.



Welcome to the club. What do you hope to gain from an insight into the nature of certain theists ? Can I suggest that you read an introductory book on the philosophy of religion. You will find the pros and cons of religious belief discussed in an even-handed manner. You will be asked to take nothing on trust. All you need do is to use your reason, a faculty with which you were born. You will enjoy the pleasure of meeting with minds who have thought about things and that will stimulate your own thinking. If you wish , you can take things to another level by reading one or more of the books mentioned in the bibliography.

I can suggest some books that you might find useful. Just ask, if you want some information.

You probably have some idea by now of the futility of debating such matters with theists. They have made their minds up, so whatever you say, you will make no impression. They will not reason with you because reason is the enemy of blind faith. They will argue but that is not the same thing as reasoning.

So why not follow the course I am suggesting, listen to all sides and make your own mind up.Whatever you end up believing is irrelevant. You can at least claim that you have studied all sides of the debate and come to your own conclusions. Compare that with believing something because one preacher sounds more convincing than another or because it is what the people around you believe.

Don't be afraid to be free; I won't say it's easy but I will say that you will retain your dignity and integrity.

I wish you well whatever you decide

I agree with everything you say. I guess a sense of humour comes from realizing that the world is full of "experts" arguing with other " experts " over what each KNOWS to be true.
its no coincidence that such arguments are held between similarly qualified persons - IOW its quite uncommon to find say a physicist defending string theory to an audience of garbage truck drivers, or even geologists or anthropologists for that matter

I'm having problems with my little dog. He just won't believe he is a philosopher,but he likes his new name.He may have ben a mule in a previous existence. We all know how stubborn they can be.
just wave a piece of food in front of him to help him come to grips with his epistemological foundations
:D

its no coincidence that such arguments are held between similarly qualified persons - IOW its quite uncommon to find say a physicist defending string theory to an audience of garbage truck drivers, or even geologists or anthropologists for that matter


just wave a piece of food in front of him to help him come to grips with his epistemological foundations



:D
I take it you realize that your analogy of a physicist and garbage truck drivers also works in reverse. There are people like you trying to explain your philosophy, and I use thay word loosely, to those who may be better informed on such matters. Your garbage consists of metaphors amd similes which you somehow imagine make your case for you. If only life were that simple .

My impression is that you have picked up a few philosophical terms without studying philosophy because you confuse making a statement with making a a point.

Your talk of higher and lower philosopy is nonsense. Don't take my word for it. Ask any professioal philosopher. You may care to submit a paper to The J Royal Institue of Philosophy , whose journal I subscribe to ,or a US equivalent .

My little dog wants to know what you mean by epistemology. The best I can do is to tell him it's from the Greek episteme, meaning knowledge as opposed to doxa, meaning opinion. I'm sure you can do better.

I take it you realize that your analogy of a physicist and garbage truck drivers also works in reverse. There are people like you trying to explain your philosophy, and I use thay word loosely, to those who may be better informed on such matters. Your garbage consists of metaphors amd similes which you somehow imagine make your case for you. If only life were that simple .

My impression is that you have picked up a few philosophical terms without studying philosophy because you confuse making a statement with making a a point.

Your talk of higher and lower philosopy is nonsense. Don't take my word for it. Ask any professioal philosopher. You may care to submit a paper to The J Royal Institue of Philosophy , whose journal I subscribe to ,or a US equivalent .

My little dog wants to know what you mean by epistemology. The best I can do is to tell him it's from the Greek episteme, meaning knowledge as opposed to doxa, meaning opinion. I'm sure you can do better.
seems like your imagination is getting away on you
I haven't even mentioned anything about my personal philosophical ideas
I have explained a few elementary aspects of knowledge and how it does (and doesn't) work
anyway good luck with those subscriptions ....
:shrug:

[QUOTE=lightgigantic;163935


I have explained a few elementary aspects of knowledge and how it does (and doesn't) work
anyway good luck with those subscriptions ....
:shrug:


[/QUOTE]

You have made my point for me. You have explained NOTHING. You have made a number of statements which you confuse with explanation.

You have made my point for me. You have explained NOTHING.
the feeling is mutual
:shrug:

the feeling is mutual:shrug:



What can I say ? I am devestated by your wit.

One suggestion: Why not spend your time testing soil which. on your own admission , is something you would rather be doing anyway

What can I say ? I am devestated by your wit.

[COLOR="Blue"]One suggestion: Why not spend your time testing soil which. on your own admission , is something you would rather be doing anyway
:shrug:

Your eloquence puts me to shame

Welcome to the club. What do you hope to gain from an insight into the nature of certain theists ? Can I suggest that you read an introductory book on the philosophy of religion. You will find the pros and cons of religious belief discussed in an even-handed manner. You will be asked to take nothing on trust. All you need do is to use your reason, a faculty with which you were born. You will enjoy the pleasure of meeting with minds who have thought about things and that will stimulate your own thinking. If you wish , you can take things to another level by reading one or more of the books mentioned in the bibliography.

I can suggest some books that you might find useful. Just ask, if you want some information.

You probably have some idea by now of the futility of debating such matters with theists. They have made their minds up, so whatever you say, you will make no impression. They will not reason with you because reason is the enemy of blind faith. They will argue but that is not the same thing as reasoning.

So why not follow the course I am suggesting, listen to all sides and make your own mind up.Whatever you end up believing is irrelevant. You can at least claim that you have studied all sides of the debate and come to your own conclusions. Compare that with believing something because one preacher sounds more convincing than another or because it is what the people around you believe.

Don't be afraid to be free; I won't say it's easy but I will say that you will retain your dignity and integrity.

I wish you well whatever you decide

Myles, thanks for the suggestion although I'm afraid they were wasted on me. I wasn't claiming that I personally struggle with the question on a day to day basis, as the truth is I've already made up my mind. Not believing in god kind of makes it hard to sit down and seriously critique's god's personal thoughts and shenanigans.

Rather, I think it's an interesting question for someone who's never thought about it, whether they're an atheist or not. In fact, God doesn't even have to be involved in the initial line of discussion. Rather, the simple philosophical question of what are good and evil, and are they absolute.

That's the insight I was able to gleam from the discussion. Certain theists view god as the absolute good. God does good things not because they're good, but because god does them. I wasn't aware of this and knowing it now puts these theists in a different light. I realize that you can't simply throw an argument of "torture is wrong!" at them because god can do no wrong. When god tortures, it's right. It's 100% justified. And so, you can't approach a theist that way. It's a foolish attempt that will undeniable result with you meeting a brick wall.

That's why I feel that everyone should, at one point in their lives, ponder the idea of absolute good/evil.

[QUOTE=ashura;1642558



Certain theists view god as the absolute good. God does good things not because they're good, but because god does them.


I realize that you can't simply throw an argument of "torture is wrong!" at them because god can do no wrong. When god tortures, it's right. It's 100% justified. And so, you can't approach a theist that way.

That's why I feel that everyone should, at one point in their lives, ponder the idea of absolute good/evil.




Most theists have no need to ponder because they know. Each denomination believes it knows the TRUTH, from which it follows that all others are wrong. This situation has not come about as a result of pondering; rather it is the result of believing what one's parents believe and/or unwillingness or inability to think for oneself.

Most theists have no need to ponder because they know.

Most have no reason to ponder because none was given to them. In a culture where religion and the idea of god is so ingrained, I can't really say I blame them. The blame only comes when one refuses to at least think about the idea once it's brought up. Most theists I know aren't like that and some have even had their mind's changed.

Most theists have no need to ponder because they know.

LOL...What irony. What illogical nonsense...anyway, We ponder...we just ponder different things. We know about certain aspects of existence only because of/according to what has been revealed to man through the Word of God. Yet despite God's revelation, Paul says Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. Certainly this promise provides lots for an individual to ponder...for instance, the degree of ones knowing "then"...i.e. I shall know just as I am known by God:

O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off. You comprehend my path and my lying down, And are acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word on my tongue, But behold, O Lord, You know it altogether. You have hedged me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is high, I cannot attain it.


I know that He knows this about me, though I do not know what this entails precisely. I only have a general understanding of myself like Paul says "Now we see through a glass darkly"...Pondering God's knowledge of oneself, one derives comfort (unless of course you are standing 'naked' before Him) along with experiencing anticipation (very fertile ground for pondering) as to what it will be like exactly to know as I am known i.e. totally and completely--and not just with respect to myself but totally and completely with respect to all that is knowable. This only comes by pondering--pondering the Word of God.

Each denomination believes it knows the TRUTH, from which it follows that all others are wrong. This situation has not come about as a result of pondering; rather it is the result of believing what one's parents believe and/or unwillingness or inability to think for oneself.

You display the the very same rudimentary understanding as some of those you lament. The result of much pondering no doubt.

Please do not preach sermons in this forum. This is a warning.

Before you get banned, Photizo, is it meant to be ironic that you've subnamed yourself after Lucifer.

[QUOTE=Photizo;1642669]LOL...What irony. What illogical nonsense...anyway, We ponder...we just ponder different things. We know about certain aspects of existence only because of/according to what has been revealed to man through the Word