• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
In no way did Sunstone call you any names whatsoever.


"Did you actually read my post before launching forth on your irrelevant and insipid response?" So, you do not consider this to be name calling with the names being used are irrelevant and insipid. I think that if this was posted by a friend than you would voice another opinion. By the end of your second post you are back into full offensive mode again. Some people just cannot help it. They hate being proved wrong so the resort in looking for anything to hang draw and quarter their opponent, like insult, they pick up on spelling mistakes, and deliberately lie to bring their opponent into disrepute. It is basic human instinct.

I am sorry that I do not respond to the rest of your post as it is edging its way towards hostility again. You are a far better poster whe to post without bias against me.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
let's see....God does not intervene in suffering ......because.....

suffering is just part of the reality of living on this planet
and the political, social, economic problems are not His creation

God gave Man dominion
what we suffer is mostly the fault of our fellow man

the physical stuff?......just part of the dying process
we begin to die right after the first breath
 

serp777

Well-Known Member
Whenever you make an accusation of a logical fallacy it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate how you have determined it to be a fallacy. How does anything I have said pertains to a red herring. If your sensibilities are not equal to rigorous debate then maybe this is not the best place for you to frequent.

I only pull the ad hominem card if there is ad hominem levied against me. As I am a consummate defender of my God many atheists resort to ad hominem when it appears inevitable that they are losing ground, like you have done on numerous occasions, and like you are doing here.by misrepresenting me.

"Sunstones very valid argument?" Now, if you believe that then you are as mislead as he is. I cannot understand how anyone could not see the triviality of his story. A man decides to ask for Gods help to insure that he gets the best parking space for him whilst people are dying of starvation whilst he is asking for His help. If that man wants to waste his time asking God for a parking place that best suits him, then that is his right, it is not a reflection on Christianity as a whole, as he appears to suggest, and in comparison to the real atrocities of this world it is a triviality that is not worthy of the post it occupies. That is not the kind of argument that logical thinkers would consider, however, having conversed with you on this forum, it is what I would expect.



You suggest that these polite words of concern are full of spite and hypocrisy. "Maybe you should check the comprehensibility of your post before calling me unnecessary names." Where? Where is the spite you claim to see. Where is the hypocrisy you indict me with? Words are empty without corroboration and I see no corroboration here. If you want to see offence then read what he said to me first. "Did you actually read my post before launching forth on your irrelevant and insipid response?" suggesting that I respond to posts without actually reading them which would make me a fool. Also, the hypocrisy of being told that my post is irrelevant and insipid when his post is ambiguous and vague. You do a very good job of demonstrating that you are being personally instead of keeping to the argument. It is clear that you see me as your enemy rather than one who is better educated in religion than you.



No, that is how you have interpreted it. I said "Maybe you should check the comprehensibility of your post before calling me unnecessary names." That is not an implication that his post is incomprehensible it is friendly advice for him to check what he has written to see if he has inadvertently worded it incorrectly. Of course you will see something completely different, after all, I am a Christian.

If his post seems quite clear to you why haven't you provided an explanation to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about. Maybe you are unsure of what he is saying as well

If his post seems quite clear to you why haven't you provided an explanation to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about. Maybe you are unsure of what he is saying as well
Well my goal wasn't to explain it to you, which is why i didn't reply to you. So why would I supply an explanation? It makes sense to the person i was responding to. Rexplaining something he already understood would be redundant and condescending.

That is not an implication that his post is incomprehensible it is friendly advice for him to check what he has written to see if he has inadvertently worded it incorrectly. Of course you will see something completely different, after all, I am a Christian.

How is it not the implication? The only reason you would ask someone to check the comprehensibility of something is if you thought that thing was incomprehensible. It was not "friendly advice" as you put it. If somebody is using completely wrong words and they don't make sense, then the post is incomprehensible . You're trying to weasal out of this by rephrasing things to . Everyone here sees your implication clearly. This was just a spiteful jab because you thought he was insulting you. Also, spare me the Christian victimization please. You aren't a victim. It has nothing to do with the fact that you're a Christian.

You do a very good job of demonstrating that you are being personally instead of keeping to the argument. It is clear that you see me as your enemy rather than one who is better educated in religion than you.

Nobody sees you as being better educated with respect to religion than anyone else. You're not some genius theologian or religious scholar; I hate to break it to you and spoil your fantasy. Also why would I see you as an enemy? Stop being so dramatic. I don't consider any RF posters an enemy because that would be foolish. We're not fighting a war here.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
From off the top of my head, without the need to quote a dictionary, You believe that God does not exist. That is as plane and simple as it gets, needing no reason to use a dictionary to bolster your argument, however, here is a quote from the Free Online Dictionary, that is as viable as the Oxford Dictionary.

atheism
(ˈeiθiizəm) noun
the belief that there is no God. ateísmo
ˈatheist noun
a person who does not believe in God. ateo
ˌatheˈistic adjective
ateo

Incidentally, there was a response left to your quote that shows that your quote is outdated.

This said, I agree that this definition (especially in our post-Richard Dawkins era) does need revision - but not the specific revision you propose. Rather, I would suggest that it needs to be revised to reflect the fact that atheists actively oppose the idea that God exists - often with surprising vehemence, considering that they are, in essence, defending a NON-belief or absence of religious faith.
No, like I said, I don't believe god(s) exists. I have not seen any compelling evidence that leads me to believe that god(s) exist.

I'm not making a claim that god(s) don't exist. I'm not making any claim.

Atheists aren't a monolith. The only thing we all have in common is that we don't believe in and/or worship god(s). There are strong atheists, weak atheists, agnostic atheists and others who may make the claim that there are no gods or whatever claim they want, but I am not one of them.

I will use whatever I feel is necessary to bolster or clarify my argument, thank you.

And I wouldn't say that Richard Dawkins-types "actively oppose the idea that god exists" per se (although in some cases it may be). I think what is actively being opposed are the ideas contained in ancient holy books and regarded as fact by followers of those religions.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
This guy pretty much always pulls the ad hominem card on anyone he's arguing with. He's just trying to distract you from sunstone's very valid argument. Its ironically a red herring fallacy. If you look at his posts you'll see that his arguments almost always deteriorate into insult allegations.

I mean look at the spite and hypocrisy:



He's implying that the post is incomprehensible and that sunstone wasn't smart enough to check it, which is ridiculous because his post seems quite clear to me.
This ^^^
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Isnt that pretty much what religion is?

Au contraire mon ami, it came to me when it was least expected as I was caught up in enjoying the inequities of the world. It certainly is not a choice that one makes without considerable contemplation as it bring an end to carnality, however, you couldn't possibly know that as you have not received the Holy Ghost in your bosom.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Well my goal wasn't to explain it to you, which is why i didn't reply to you. So why would I supply an explanation? It makes sense to the person i was responding to. Rexplaining something he already understood would be redundant and condescending.

Well, this is an open forum for all to respond to. You know that so you should post accordingly, as you have said, right here, "Everyone here sees your implication clearly" so everyone will read your unjustified attacks at the same time.

How is it not the implication? The only reason you would ask someone to check the comprehensibility of something is if you thought that thing was incomprehensible. It was not "friendly advice" as you put it. If somebody is using completely wrong words and they don't make sense, then the post is incomprehensible . You're trying to weasal out of this by rephrasing things to . Everyone here sees your implication clearly. This was just a spiteful jab because you thought he was insulting you. Also, spare me the Christian victimization please. You aren't a victim. It has nothing to do with the fact that you're a Christian.

You judge me without a yard stick. It may well have been me, the weasel, who was unable to decipher what was being said. I know that some weasel have a comprehension problem, especially those who take cheap shot jabs at the innocent.

Everyone here sees your implication clearly, My first reaction to this was "So What, I am not playing to an audience I am expressing my opinion." Then I realised that If by my implications you mean that I was demonstrating how helping a fellow poster to see that his post was hard to understand so he should take a second look, then it is good that "everyone" sees my implications, though everyone may be a slight exaggeration. However, I believe that you are wrong in your false and unsubstantiated condemnation of me when you say that I am a spiteful, meanie weasel. Those who judge others, whilst they walk in crooked paths themselves, are incapable of discerning the good intentions in the hearts of those who live a Christ Centred life. Your intervention here is spurred on by your bitter enmity in failing to prove your argument.
Nobody sees you as being better educated with respect to religion than anyone else.

And you know that so you can speak for everyone on that? Or is it another anecdotal assertion.
You're not some genius theologian or religious scholar;

Those are your words, not mine. You misrepresent me whilst trying to discredit me to "everyone."

I hate to break it to you and spoil your fantasy.

Well I know that is not true, you would be elated to be able to catch me out in some kind of immorality.
Also why would I see you as an enemy? Stop being so dramatic.

Because you cannot disprove my opinions on here.
I don't consider any RF posters an enemy because that would be foolish.

Then why treat me with such utter contempt because my opinion is not yours. If your posts reflect your good nature to others on here then how would you treat posters if you were being mean?
We're not fighting a war here.

Oh, there is a war being fought right now between good and evil. Just today I heard a British politician describe how much more the world is corrupt when compared to the 1970's. Nobody can be trusted was his grievance of the state of affairs, in this devil run world. The frightening thing is that satan, and those who subscribe to his idealisms, are winning right now, demonstrated by the attitude of the hostile atheists on this forum
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Especially when making such assertions as, "It would not be compelling to you as you are obviously convinced that there is no God. It is only compelling to those who seek Him."


Yes, but you are excessively disputatious with your victimisation and incessant prejudicial goading and taunting of Christians, and me in particular. I expect your negativity, as do many other posters here.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
No, like I said, I don't believe god(s) exists. I have not seen any compelling evidence that leads me to believe that god(s) exist.

Then you are a believer in non-belief, or, you do not believe that God exists, that is what you believe. It is your belief.

I'm not making a claim that god(s) don't exist. I'm not making any claim.

Well that s not true, you have argued with me that a God does not exist. I know that I have never tried to preach my faith to you, I have merely defended your claims. Your claims are based on your beliefs that God does not exist. To say that you are not making any claims is grossly disingenuous.
Atheists aren't a monolith. The only thing we all have in common is that we don't believe in and/or worship god(s). There are strong atheists, weak atheists, agnostic atheists and others who may make the claim that there are no gods or whatever claim they want, but I am not one of them.

Your attempts to segregate yourself from the standard atheist is not very successful.
I will use whatever I feel is necessary to bolster or clarify my argument, thank you.

Yes, even at the expense of being wrong.
And I wouldn't say that Richard Dawkins-types "actively oppose the idea that god exists" per se (although in some cases it may be).

Really?
I think what is actively being opposed are the ideas contained in ancient holy books and regarded as fact by followers of those religions.

So you are opposing Christianity. In order for you to do that you must have evidence to support your "Claim." Your evidence is based on your belief, therefore, you believe that the idealism surrounding Christianity is wrong.

It is ok, I realise that your track record suggests that you don't concede to anything, even when you are undeniably wrong. I am just playing with what is blatantly true and obvious that you say is wrong.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Yes, but you are excessively disputatious with your victimisation and incessant prejudicial goading and taunting of Christians, and me in particular. I expect your negativity, as do many other posters here.
:rolleyes:
It sounds like you're projecting again, especially with the victimization stuff (ironically and comically so, imo).

You're the only person to ever express such feelings about my posts. I actually get along quite nicely with religious and non-religious folks alike on this forum, so please don't attempt to speak for other posters in that regard. I guess most people don't interpret refutations of their arguments as personal attacks. That's probably the big difference.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Then you are a believer in non-belief, or, you do not believe that God exists, that is what you believe. It is your belief.
No.

I do not believe that the god you claim to exist, actually exists. I lack belief in that god. I could easily be convinced, given compelling evidence to believe, just like anything else. I think most people go about most every aspect of their lives in that way, save for god belief. Otherwise, we'd have to go around believing everything until someone could prove that it wasn't real.


Well that s not true, you have argued with me that a God does not exist. I know that I have never tried to preach my faith to you, I have merely defended your claims. Your claims are based on your beliefs that God does not exist. To say that you are not making any claims is grossly disingenuous.
Instead of trying to tell me what I believe, please provide my exact words so that I can see what you are talking about.

Please explain how not having a belief in god(s) is a claim.

I don't think you mean that you've "defended my claims" because then you'd be on my side of the argument, and I'm pretty sure you aren't.

Your attempts to segregate yourself from the standard atheist is not very successful.
What do you need me to elaborate on? Are you under the impression that all atheists share the same beliefs and views? If so, why?

Yes, even at the expense of being wrong.
Please explain what I was wrong about.

Even the definition you provided contained within it what I have said several times now.

Some do, some don't, as stated. Again, atheists aren't all the same in their thought processes and beliefs/views.

So you are opposing Christianity. In order for you to do that you must have evidence to support your "Claim." Your evidence is based on your belief, therefore, you believe that the idealism surrounding Christianity is wrong.

It is ok, I realise that your track record suggests that you don't concede to anything, even when you are undeniably wrong. I am just playing with what is blatantly true and obvious that you say is wrong.
A claim is an assertion of fact or truth. Which is why lacking a belief in something is not a claim.

When I oppose an argument that I find objectionable and/or incorrect or inaccurate, I will explain why I find it so, as I have done throughout this thread and others.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
No.

I do not believe that the god you claim to exist, actually exists.

So you are a nonbeliever than. You don't believe that the God, that I know exists, actually exists. You actually believe that he does not exists and that I, and all others who make the same claim as me, are in fact liars or mentally challenged.
I lack belief in that god

So you also believe that you lack in belief in that God.
I could easily be convinced, given compelling evidence to believe, just like anything else.

So you also have trust issues because you think that everything needs to be proven for you to believe it. That must make you very indecisive.

I think most people go about most every aspect of their lives in that way, save for god belief.

Not at all. When my wife tells me it is raining outside I never ask her for a video tape of the rain and then check the date just in case it is yesterdays date and she is trying to deceive me. When I heard, on the news, that Princess Diana had died in a car crash I did not jump on a plane to France and demand to see her body as evidence. None of us did. Did you want to? When ever we are told anything we always determine for ourselves if it is likely or unlikely to be true by examining the circumstances. You would surely ask why would decent and respectable citizens tell you that God exists when they know that He doesn't, before you would ask for scientific evidence, wouldn't you? People are not normally given to telling lies, unless they are lacking in moral values, that is.
Otherwise, we'd have to go around believing everything until someone could prove that it wasn't real.

Yes, that is what normal trusting people do.
Instead of trying to tell me what I believe, please provide my exact words so that I can see what you are talking about.

Why, don't you believe me? Why would I lie about such a triviality

What do you need me to elaborate on? Are you under the impression that all atheists share the same beliefs and views? If so, why?

How many variations are there in a disbelief of God.

Please explain what I was wrong about.

Sadly, time and computer memory would restrict me

Some do, some don't, as stated. Again, atheists aren't all the same in their thought processes and beliefs/views.

The all do not believe in a God, which is all I have shared an opinion on.

A claim is an assertion of fact or truth. Which is why lacking a belief in something is not a claim.

A more accurate definition of assertion is a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief, however, it is generally used to express an opinion or a speculation. A claim is much different. It is to state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

When I oppose an argument that I find objectionable and/or incorrect or inaccurate, I will explain why I find it so, as I have done throughout this thread and others.

That is where the difference between your perception of what you think you do and reality.
 

dgirl1986

Big Queer Chesticles!
Au contraire mon ami, it came to me when it was least expected as I was caught up in enjoying the inequities of the world. It certainly is not a choice that one makes without considerable contemplation as it bring an end to carnality, however, you couldn't possibly know that as you have not received the Holy Ghost in your bosom.

It is real to those who wish it to be real. I was a believer in the Christian god for 11 years, a pagan for 2 and an atheist for 3.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Yes

But I have told you that He exists. For what concievable reason would I lie about it when I can confidently say that if you try it then you to will recieve it? Why would 2.2 billion Christians lie or 2 billion Muslims? Please don't say mass histerior or some other cop out. Do you have a trust issue, have you been lied to on a grand scale? Do you need proof that you will rise in the morning before you prepare your packed lunch and work cloths. Do you place a call to the local TV station to make sure that your favourite program will be airing at 8.00pm just in case your TV guide is a lie? If I were lying what would be my motive? what would I benefit from lying. God lives, I know He does because I have rationally and logically recieved the testimony of his on Holy Spirit. I am not on my own in that claim either. We all know that God exists because we have recieved a personal witness. You have not recieved that personal witness, and I get the impression that you do not want it, so we cannot expect you to be able to testify of a truth that you just don't know, but let me assure youthat it exists.

That is absurd. There are not 2.2 billion people claiming that a green bean god exists, indeed, such a belief would not be accepted on the grounds that it is a ludicrously ridiculus claim to make, the existence of a God is equally as tenable as science is. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" yet that is exactly what you are saying.

What you consider as twisted words is logical truth and objective reasoning to those who speak them because those who speak them do so from experience whereas your response is based on complete ignorance of the reality of deity. One thing in your favour is that you cannot be judged on a law you do not know.

Because your facts are not baased on truth that has been verified by the source of it. That is, the horses mouth.

Science is discovering what God already knows. It is discovering what I and all of Christianity knows. For example, The big bang is a theory, however, I know it to be a fact through the Holy Ghost that testifies of that which is true.I am not aware of the mechanism that set it in motion but I do know that God is responsible for it, however, you cannot comprehend that as you have not felt the truth through the Holy Ghost.

As I said, your facts are not based on all of the evidence. You selectively omit the most important part, a designer.

It has been proven suffiently enough to me in order for me to tesify of its authenticity. Just the fact that I, a rational and reasonably intelligent human being, have said it should be enough for you to believe me, especially when considering the lack of motive in me telling a lie. Why else would I and 2.2 billion others lie? It is not my fault that you are overly skeptical so do not believe me.

You must have noticed that Christians do not use this forum as a venue to preach to the unconverted. Christian do not have to prove anything as they are not claiming anything. It is the likes of you who are claiming that Christians have it all wrong, OK, then prove it. There is enough circumstantial evidence, that when it is all brought together,proves that there is a God. You do not want to acept that very real proof

then why not try to find him instead of fervantly trying to disprove His eistence?

The information that you have has been passed onto you by man. I am sure that an in depth look at it will show that your source is less then accurate. Men, after all, are infallible. The evidence that I possess comes from God via the Holy Ghost. I know which of the two is more likely to be erroneous. The fact is that I, like the majority of Christians, have recieved an unmistakable witness from an intellegent and tangible source saying that God lives. That you do not believe me is your loss.

*

You saying or believing something is so doesn't make it so. Nor does it make you a liar. It is your belief. A belief with no proof that you can supply for the rest of us.

I can confidently say that if you try it then you to will recieve it.

I was raised Christian and that is baloney. Once I actually studied what the Bible said, I knew it could not be from any God. Too much horrible stuff done by, and allowed by, YHVH. I believe it is written by men, so they can do the horrible things men want to do.

People are trained to believe the Bible or Qur'an is true, even when they have crappy lives. You don't believe in the Qur'an, and I don't believe in the Bible.

I have shown straight out twisting and changing of words. Qadesh being changed to homosexual for instance.

The big bang is a "theory" with science behind it. Your "invisible being" has nothing behind it.

You must have noticed that Christians do not use this forum as a venue to preach to the unconverted...

LOL! You have got to be kidding!

*
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
You saying or believing something is so doesn't make it so. Nor does it make you a liar. It is your belief. A belief with no proof that you can supply for the rest of us.



I was raised Christian and that is baloney. Once I actually studied what the Bible said, I knew it could not be from any God. Too much horrible stuff done by, and allowed by, YHVH. I believe it is written by men, so they can do the horrible things men want to do.

People are trained to believe the Bible or Qur'an is true, even when they have crappy lives. You don't believe in the Qur'an, and I don't believe in the Bible.

I have shown straight out twisting and changing of words. Qadesh being changed to homosexual for instance.

The big bang is a "theory" with science behind it. Your "invisible being" has nothing behind it.



LOL! You have got to be kidding!

*
ok.....and for the most part I agree......
but science can take you TO the point of beginning and it must stop there
and science would have you believe...nothing moves until something moves it

Spirit first
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
It is very easy to agree with someone when they are saying what you want to hear. All that means is that both of you are wrong, especially considering that it was an allegory.

Good grief! You are going to say we are wrong when science proves us right?

"Helen Fisher of Rutgers University in the States has proposed 3 stages of love – lust, attraction and attachment. Each stage might be driven by different hormones and chemicals."

They are testosterone and oestrogen, adrenalin and cortisol, the neurotransmitter dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin, - and more.

chemistryoflove.jpg


Those last couple are where one becomes addicted.

"A landmark experiment in Pisa, Italy showed that early love (the attraction phase) really changes the way you think.

Dr Donatella Marazziti, a psychiatrist at the University of Pisa advertised for twenty couples who'd been madly in love for less than six months. She wanted to see if the brain mechanisms that cause you to constantly think about your lover, were related to the brain mechanisms of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

By analyzing blood samples from the lovers, Dr Marazitti discovered that serotonin levels of new lovers were equivalent to the low serotonin levels of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder patients." http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

*
 
Top