Giving God human qualities

[Autodidact]

itwillend: You have at last five other open threads in which you are failing to respond to people whom you have invited to talk to you. Why don't you attend to some of the other threads you've started, before opening any new ones.

Oh wait, that would require good manners and consideration for others. Never mind.

 

[richardlowellt]

Not anymore. I made an assumption and I was wrong in that assumption. I apologise.

No need, I do get emotional when religions conversations take place.

As for the large quote thing, were all those things inside the quotes but outside mine your statements? Which would make the only statement outside of quotes sarcastic... Which means I have to defend my point...

I'm not quite sure what you mean, the quotes inside the boxes are yours, mine are outside the boxes and below them, if thats what you mean.

 

[Morse]

Ahh, I've never seen that particular thread phenomena before.

Mind if I address your points tomorrow? I am getting rather tired and I need to get up early. Sorry, I hate putting these things off.

 

[richardlowellt]

Ahh, I've never seen that particular thread phenomena before.

Mind if I address your points tomorrow? I am getting rather tired and I need to get up early. Sorry, I hate putting these things off.

By all means, I to am up early for work, have a pleasant evening.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

BS, the mistake here is assuming any good can come from imperfectly creating us and our world. No one said parasites were evil, they are part of nature, no god placed them here, no loving god could, there existence further proves that no such being created anything, same for the cooling planet. I will assume the imperfect human and the imperfect universe he is part of was never created by any supernatural being. The imperfections we see, and the premiss of a perfect being creating all is an oxymoron.

This is indeed one perspective, but if the bible is true, than it is the wrong perspective. We'll find out one day sooner or later.

Thank you though for the feedback, I mean that really. It is in our difference and learning how others think that allow growth to happen.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

And you know this how?

For me, it is what makes sense after looking at the evidence I have available to me.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

itwillend: You have at last five other open threads in which you are failing to respond to people whom you have invited to talk to you. Why don't you attend to some of the other threads you've started, before opening any new ones.

Oh wait, that would require good manners and consideration for others. Never mind.

I have a life too. I respond when I can. I have responded to you as well. I have not attacked you or insulted you, so why I am getting that from you, I am not certain.

Is there something on your mind? Did I say something that bothered you in a way that called for you to insult me? This is a forum where we express our views and so forth. That is all I am doing.

If I said something personally offensive and particularly directed at you, I am sorry, please point that out for me, so I can understand.

Have a good one.

 

[Autodidact]

For me, it is what makes sense after looking at the evidence I have available to me.

Could you be a little more vague?

 

[Morse]

Could you be a little more vague?

Could you be a little more aggressive?

 

[Morse]

And what are the functions that we have evolved to do? What "said parts" do we not need? How does a rib cage that does not fully enclose our most vital organs, and retinas prone to detachment fall into your scheme?

I really cannot answer that, as humans are a very versatile species. It is likely though, that over time, we have evolved as such because we have not needed to have enclosed rib cages and retinas that aren't prone to detachment. For what reasons? I couldn't say. But we obviously haven't needed those features and features similar to them, otherwise we would have evolved to fit them into our function.

Just as a bird evolves to better suit its purpose, so did humans. If it isn't needed, it won't develop. It wasn't needed for us to suit our function, and thus it didn't develop.

All well and good, yes of course we expect to die, but not because we have been designed so fragile that a mere fall can kill us.

We expect to die from all sorts of causes. If I'm faced with a gun, I expect to die from a bullet. If I find the concrete rushing up to meet my head because I just swan dived from a 40 story building, I expect to die from a collision. When considering death, we as a race take more than old age into account.

And humans aren't all that fragile. People can survive falls from planes.

Oh, I think once we eliminated the mindless breeding cycle that religion demands, that "be fruitful and multiply" mindset that religion hoodwinks the poor and uneducated into believing, we could certainly control our population. Of course we would eventually die, that is part of the natural cycle of things, perfect? I'm inclined to think not.

I've actually never heard the "be fruitful and multiply" mindset. Population is exponential and will continue to grow as long as people have children, even ONE child. The human need to reproduce is biological, not theological. As long as people have biological urges, we will reproduce, and the population will exponentially grow. We could implement population control, but that usually involves forcing people to stem biological urges or killing people off.

I'm mot sure what these reasons could be, unnecessary suffering seems to have no purpose.

We learn from out mistakes. If a child burns himself on a stove, he learns that stoves are hot and not to touch them when they're on. With no negative experiences, we wouldn't experience growth. So what you define as "Unnecessary" suffering, may actually be necessary for growth.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Could you be a little more vague?

Everything I say is rubbish to you, yet you complain when I am vague.
You seem keen on insulting me, and then say I am vague. what is the point of discussing in detail my views with you, if you aren't really interested? Or know that anything I say will be bombarded with your hatred for the bible (which I respect)?

 

[Autodidact]

Everything I say is rubbish to you, yet you complain when I am vague.
You seem keen on insulting me, and then say I am vague. what is the point of discussing in detail my views with you, if you aren't really interested? Or know that anything I say will be bombarded with your hatred for the bible (which I respect)?

If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't ask. Interested does not equal agreement. You don't think your answer was vague? When you say it's raining out, and your friend asks how you know, you answer, "The evidence seems to indicate that to me."

So what you're saying then is that you made an assertion and have no specific source or support for that assertion? You say that you have evidence for it, but cannot say what that evidence is?

If you are not willing to support your assertions, how can we debate, which is the purpose of this forum? If you don't want to debate, why are yhou here, in a debate forum???

 

[Just_me_Mike]

If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't ask. Interested does not equal agreement. You don't think your answer was vague? When you say it's raining out, and your friend asks how you know, you answer, "The evidence seems to indicate that to me."

So what you're saying then is that you made an assertion and have no specific source or support for that assertion? You say that you have evidence for it, but cannot say what that evidence is?

If you are not willing to support your assertions, how can we debate, which is the purpose of this forum? If you don't want to debate, why are yhou here, in a debate forum???

I am not sure if your only objective is to reiterate to anyone that is interested in the bible, that God is a jerkish murdering maniac, but I think I am willing to discuss one on one with you about this. I would love to flesh this out, because frankly I am always open to learning new things, and the passion and intelligence you bring interests me.

Would you have any interest? I would be more willing to discuss evidence and deepen the conversation.

 

[richardlowellt]

I really cannot answer that, as humans are a very versatile species. It is likely though, that over time, we have evolved as such because we have not needed to have enclosed rib cages and retinas that aren't prone to detachment

Both are design flaws, when would we not need our eyesight? Why would we have no need to protect our most vital organs? Man's brain evolved, so the night vision that Owls have in order to hunt for food and survive, did not evolve in humans as we learned, via our superior brain, to grow food and the create devices that made hunting for food easier.

For what reasons? I couldn't say. But we obviously haven't needed those features and features similar to them, otherwise we would have evolved to fit them into our function.

As stated above, our brains evolved so physical features such as night vision, acute sense of smell and hearing, camouflage, and other evolutionary traits were not needed.

We expect to die from all sorts of causes. If I'm faced with a gun, I expect to die from a bullet. If I find the concrete rushing up to meet my head because I just swan dived from a 40 story building, I expect to die from a collision. When considering death, we as a race take more than old age into account.

And humans aren't all that fragile. People can survive falls from planes.

Human are indeed that fragile, a slip on your front steps can kill you, children have been known to drown in less than a foot of water, a dive into a pool can break your neck, and I won't go into all the evil microorganisms this divine being populated the earth with.

I've actually never heard the "be fruitful and multiply" mindset.

It's certainly part of the Catholic religion, remember no birth control, it's a sin, so they tell the poor and uneducated, and the babies just keep coming, they can't feed the children they have, but the church says keep them coming. On condoms the Pope comments were, "Aids is bad but condoms are worse"

Population is exponential and will continue to grow as long as people have children, even ONE child.

No with proper management humans can control the earth wide population, but they don't stand a chance with religion standing in the way.

The human need to reproduce is biological, not theological. As long as people have biological urges, we will reproduce, and the population will exponentially grow.

It seems I have more faith in our species than you do, biological urges can be controlled, hell I do it in the college all the time. In many cases it is Theological, spend some time with the poor and the uneducated, especially those with religion, the South American countries come to mind as most are of the Catholic faith.

We could implement population control, but that usually involves forcing people to stem biological urges or killing people off.

No you don't have to "stem" biological urges, just educate them on various means of birth control, of course you have to get by the church telling them that the copulation should only be to produce offspring, and no we don't have to kill them off, it's amazing what a little education will accomplish.

We learn from out mistakes. If a child burns himself on a stove, he learns that stoves are hot and not to touch them when they're on. With no negative experiences, we wouldn't experience growth. So what you define as "Unnecessary" suffering, may actually be necessary for growth.

Explain how the parasitic worm that burrows into a child's eye is necessary for growth. Malaria, Dysentery, stage 3 cancers, ALS, Aids, all necessary for growth?

 

[Autodidact]

I am not sure if your only objective is to reiterate to anyone that is interested in the bible, that God is a jerkish murdering maniac, but I think I am willing to discuss one on one with you about this. I would love to flesh this out, because frankly I am always open to learning new things, and the passion and intelligence you bring interests me.

No, I have a lot of interests. My main point is that God doesn't exist. However, the fictional God you choose to worship is clearly a murdering maniac, you'd have to agree with that, no? Unless you don't consider slaughtering little babies murder???

Would you have any interest? I would be more willing to discuss evidence and deepen the conversation.

What is it you want to discuss? I'm probably interested.

And if you do, why don't you just answer my questions so we can discuss it?

 

[Morse]

Explain how the parasitic worm that burrows into a child's eye is necessary for growth. Malaria, Dysentery, stage 3 cancers, ALS, Aids, all necessary for growth?

The difference between somebody from a majority of organized religions and me is that I do not claim to know the answers. I remind you that everything I say is speculation, and I do not hold it to my heart in any fashion, as its just stray thoughts and not necessarily true.

I may be wrong, I may be right. But I will attempt to answer your question.

First of all, you portray these things (Parasites, Malaria, Dyentery, Cancer, ALS, Aids, etc.) as evil things. They are not evil or even necessarily bad when examined objectively. They are simply playing a function they were designed for.

As well, history has shown that the greatest amount of growth is achieved through strife or adversary. If the world were "perfect" (as in, no diseases, war, crime, etc..) we would grow complacent. Trends have demonstrated this to be true to a lesser extent. After complacency, we achieve stagnation. Without growth, the world would not be perfect. Thus a perfect world in your sense would become dystopian and backwards.

Hmm, it seems like there was something else I had to say, but I forgot it. So I may post an addition to this later.

 

[Mr. Hair]

Many ask why do some try to give human qualities to God.

Maybe because it can be difficult to bring the unformed God of rough silk and briar patches into our everyday lives?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Before I continue: Objectively perfect (in every extent) things are not real; as in the confines of reality cannot contain such a thing. The totality of reality itself might be objectively perfect, but nothing within a hierarchy can possibly be Perfection.

With that said it does not follow necessarily that all of life's hardships are a slight against the design (or lack thereof) inherent to our section of reality. Without states to compare one cannot achieve growth. With no possibility for growth evolution is impossible. If change over time is impossible, then any purpose that an object does not realize instantaneously is defunct. As such all imperfect objects (which cannot by definition contain all possible valuable qualities) would be defunct to some extent. That does not sound like good "design" to me.

The variety and magnitude of adversity is subjectively relevant. There is no such thing as too much adversity, only too much adversity for a given individual. Do not pretend that this means I am entirely accepting of adverse circumstances or conditions. It does not, but it does mean that I am not prepared to accept that just because I think I can conceive of a better world means that there could actually be one. Anyone who believes that they know a way in which they could change the whole of human history for the better is guilty of hubris of a monumental sort. If we didn't have some specific disease, how do we know that humanity doesn't learn some lesson that would be integral to our well being now or in the near future. We don't. And that is why speculation on "better worlds" are best reserved as utopian future fantasy and that's all.

MTF