THERE Is no super being i will tell you why

[Kilgore Trout]

Really, in the grand scheme of things why should god care, perhaps it's not that big a deal to something as inhuman as a god?

I don't know what a hypothetical god would care about, but it's obvious that the idea of a god which loves humans, is ludicrous.

 

[Riverwolf]

Okay, but what if you're child was about to get sexually molested? Should you try to prevent that - or is that coddling and over-protected child? We're not just talking about skinned knees here.

That is not something within the child's control, and therefore must be prevented.

Besides, I've heard that studies show that children who are molested at young ages are psychologically scarred for life. That's not the same as being strong.

 

[Riverwolf]

Fair enough. But lets get to the real point of this line of thinking. What if your child was about to die and you could save his/her life? Would you?

See above, same applies.

 

[painted wolf]

I don't know what a hypothetical god would care about, but it's obvious that the idea of a god which loves humans, is ludicrous.

"love" is not a simple thing.... there are many ways to love something.
The idea that humans need some sort of special coddling that no other species or object in all of creation gets is what bothers me.

People who whine about how God never did anything to help them so therefore there must be no god... well, that argument sounds like a spoiled child to me.

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

"love" is not a simple thing.... there are many ways to love something.
The idea that humans need some sort of special coddling that no other species or object in all of creation gets is what bothers me.

People who whine about how God never did anything to help them so therefore there must be no god... well, that argument sounds like a spoiled child to me.

wa:do

I agree that it has absolutely no bearing on whether a god exists or not, but it does have bearing on whether a benevolent deity exists.

There are many ways to "love" something, but every imaginable way is created and defined by humans, so even attributing an anthropocentric concept like love to a deity makes little sense. If your god is defined as aloof and beyond human attributes like compassion and love, then such a god seems worthless in the day to day scheme. If your god is defineable as loving or benevolent than the argument for theodicy is relevant.

 

[Azakel]

"love" is not a simple thing.... there are many ways to love something.
The idea that humans need some sort of special coddling that no other species or object in all of creation gets is what bothers me.

People who whine about how God never did anything to help them so therefore there must be no god... well, that argument sounds like a spoiled child to me.

wa:do

There's no point Sister Painted Wolf. All they know is there ignorant understanding of what Christian spew about god that they can't see that there are other way to see it. Like the Native American view.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

People who whine about how God never did anything to help them so therefore there must be no god... well, that argument sounds like a spoiled child to me.

If that's someone's rationale for not believing in god, then I question the sincerity of their atheism. There are plenty of logical reasons for not believing god(s) exist, and no logical reasons to believe it/they do.

I'm not stating the existence of suffering as evidence that god doesn't exist - only that a benevolent god does not, which is perfectly logical.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There's no point Sister Painted Wolf. All they know is there ignorant understanding of what Christian spew about god that they can't see that there are other way to see it. Like the Native American view.

My arguments don't apply to any specific religion. Please refrain from making baseless claims about what I do or do not know.

 

[Azakel]

My arguments don't apply to any specific religion. Please refrain from making baseless claims about what I do or do not know.

It's not Baseless. You can say it's not applied to any Specific religion but you keep on using the god concept of Christian for other religions gods. It doesn't work like that. Because what other religions other the Christianity(and Islam) say there god is All-Loving and Caring.... Pagan god don't, hell Pagans will tell you there gods and be jerks.

 

[painted wolf]

I agree that it has absolutely no bearing on whether a god exists or not, but it does have bearing on whether a benevolent deity exists.

Benevolent or biased?

There are many ways to "love" something, but every imaginable way is created and defined by humans, so even attributing an anthropocentric concept like love to a deity makes little sense. If your god is defined as aloof and beyond human attributes like compassion and love, then such a god seems worthless in the day to day scheme. If your god is defineable as loving or benevolent than the argument for theodicy is relevant.

Is the worth of god only in its ability or willingness to cater to human needs and desires?

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's not Baseless. You can say it's not applied to any Specific religion but you keep on using the god concept of Christian for other religions gods. It doesn't work like that. Because what other religions other the Christianity(and Islam) say there god is All-Loving and Caring.... Pagan god don't, hell Pagans will tell you there gods and be jerks.

The discussion I was responding to was about god loving humans. It wasn't about a specific god, nor whether god was "all-loving". I didn't say anything about god being all-loving, nor did I mention the christian god. Please read for comprehension before jumping to conclusions.

 

[Azakel]

Is the worth of god only in its ability or willingness to cater to human needs and desires?

It seem that everyone thinks it is.

 

[MoonWater]

I agree that it has absolutely no bearing on whether a god exists or not, but it does have bearing on whether a benevolent deity exists.

So because god doesn't coddle us and spoil us that automatically means he/she/it/they can't be a benevolent god? How does that work?

 

[painted wolf]

There are plenty of logical reasons for not believing god(s) exist, and no logical reasons to believe it/they do.

I differ on this application of logic. Logically one can not say either way.

Ultimately the only Logical path is the path of the Agnostic.

wa:do

 

[theonepaladin]

How can you say that you suffer?! THIS WORLD IS FAKE! God is not behind "bad things that happen to you." That is MAN's SIN! Try finding an area with light, and no shadow besides His Kingdom.
Evil
Is
Sin!
Evil
Is
Making
You
Deny
God!

God IS Existance. God Created you, your sister, and EVERYTHING PURE! But then the snake comes up and says, "Heeeeey try somma this shiiiiiiiit! I'm trippin ballz out here maaaaaaan!"
and Eve said, "Um... Okay."
And then Eve ate the symbolic apple. She goes up to Adam and says:
"*Vomits* Heeeeeey theeeere! Wanna get Eaaaaaaarthly pleaaaaaasure by being a hooooooe who disobeeeeeeys the Creatooooor? *holds out hand with apple*

Sin is in us all. We have the capacity for good and the capacity for evil.

The Story of Adam and Eve is symbollic, but sin causes evil. And through sin comes prayer. Surely you must realize that evil exists in man.

As to why you can't a girlfriend... it may be because when you don't believe in God, you don't have to have morals, therefore, you have no "Diety" to remind you that you have to be nice to everyone. Also... a sense of humor sometimes works!

How is denying God's True Existance solving anything? I will add you to my list of names and pray for you to find His Eternal Grace.

Oh and by the way, I was just kidding about the "stoner apple" theory.

God Bless,
-Paladin

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So because god doesn't coddle us and spoil us that automatically means he/she/it/they can't be a benevolent god? How does that work?

Why does this straw man keep popping up?

How is preventing suffering spoiling someone? How is preventing rape, molestation, disfigurement, or a lifetime of pain coddling?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I differ on this application of logic. Logically one can not say either way.

Ultimately the only Logical path is the path of the Agnostic.

wa:do

Agnostic is the logical path in regards to whether we can know.

Atheism is the logical path in regards to whether we believe.

 

[painted wolf]

How is preventing suffering spoiling someone? How is preventing rape, molestation, disfigurement, or a lifetime of pain coddling?

Why should god fix things that we should take responsibility for?

Agnostic is the logical path in regards to whether we can know.

Atheism is the logical path in regards to whether we believe.

rather conflicting isn't it?

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why should god fix things that we should take responsibility for?

It's a matter of capability and intention. If a god has the power to prevent something horrible, and experiences empathy/love as humans do, then it would want to do so. Sure, if my niece looks like she's going to fall and scrape her knee, I might not jump out of my seat to prevent it, but if she's about to walk in front of a moving car, nothing could stop me from attempting to do so. If we want to apply an attribute to god such as "love", then it has to correspond to the emotion/actions that humans feel/take in association with that attribute. Otherwise, there is no point in naming the attribute as "love", as the attribute you were describing about god wouldn't be the human concept of love, but something else.

rather conflicting isn't it?

Obviously I wouldn't have typed it if I thought so. You're going to have to be more specific about what you find conflicting if you want a response.

 

[painted wolf]

It's a matter of capability and intention.

So humans shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for our own actions and seek a way to live in a way that isn't totally barbaric?
Why grow up as a social species when you can blame your problems on a idealized 'sky daddy'?

If a god has the power to prevent something horrible, and experiences empathy/love as humans do, then it would want to do so.

who say's it does?... Why should god want to prevent us from being stupid to ourselves? There are lots of other planets out there you know... what's so great about this rock?

Sure, if my niece looks like she's going to fall and scrape her knee, I might not jump out of my seat to prevent it, but if she's about to walk in front of a moving car, nothing could stop me from attempting to do so. If we want to apply an attribute to god such as "love", then it has to correspond to the emotion/actions that humans feel/take in association with that attribute. Otherwise, there is no point in naming the attribute as "love", as the attribute you were describing about god wouldn't be the human concept of love, but something else.

It's nice to know that the sun isn't going to supernova any time soon isn't it... and that we haven't yet been hit by a massive asteroid or that the supervolcano in Yellowstone is behaving nicely.... but you have a bad day and suddenly gods not doing it's job? Whatever it is you think it's job should be... like babysitting you and keeping you in milk and honey...

Obviously I wouldn't have typed it if I thought so. You're going to have to be more specific about what you find conflicting if you want a response.

so the only logical conclusion about gods existance is ... agnostic...
but the only logical follow up to that is to ignore half of what agnostic means?

Atheism is not the logical follow up to Agnosticism... that would be Agnosticism...

wa:do