So why has the all powerful god never intervened to reduce or ease the suffering when people are comiting acts that cause great suffering to others? If god exists he is still putting the free will of those comitting evil acts above the suffering of others. Not very good at looking after his creation then. Or maybe he does not love us enough to bother keeping a close eye on things.Originally Posted by fuddam
Secondly, having "nasty" thoughts does not make one evil. Acting nasty however can.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
I've not read most of this or the previous thread, but I think this is slightly relevant:
FOXNews.com - Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News
Although I have a feeling fox news is about equivalent to the sun here in the UK or something...
Thats just plain stupidity (on the parents part), but not all religions prevent people from seeking medical attention. There is nothing wrong with praying to God to help before/after giving medical treatment. I see it all the time in the faith rooms at hospitals.
You are correct
God sure likes to make things complicated for us mortals don't he?
Why didn't he just send down a few stones with the info on? Surely a much more efficient way?
I wouldn't have done what they did, but anyway, try this for size: Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population Page 1
placebo effect
Vodka
you have simply skimmed over my posts, clearly. God was not irresponsible: he created you, and millions like you. Why do you ignore the responsibility we all have to ease the sufferings of others?
says who? the Book According to Badass? You have a right to an opinion on what constitutes evil, but methinks more people are likely to follow the Bible's explanation of evil than yours.Secondly, having "nasty" thoughts does not make one evil. Acting nasty however can.
Further, as soon as you make a statement like that, you are positing an absolute. Be very, very careful about that, since it doesn't work within the atheist framework............
All you could really say is that "I believe, in my world view, that evil thoughts do not make one evil" etc etc
hahahahahaha!!!!
Rather ad hoc argument, for you. lol. That's like saying Galileo was talking bollocks because at the time, it was only his army of one that was making noise about the round earth, and therefore should have been disallowed.
also, unfortunately, it is not an even playing field. Surely you have some idea of the politics involved in the academic community, just like elsewhere; that people are prejudiced and will shout down anything that contradicts or endangers their position? tsk, tsk. Much like some people on this forum - not finger pointing at you, btw.
will have a look tomorrow.now how about awnsering my previous post as to how you weren't contradicting yourself, and the link you supplied with rational evaluation suggests that its idea of god is flawed.
A Double-Blind trial finds that prayer to a specific deity has positive effects?
That sounds like a mystery to me, similar to the Belfast Homeopathy study (Madeleine Ennis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
So what do we do about it? Do we 'think like a creationist' and say this is absolute proof of a magical man in the sky?
Or so we think like a Scientist, and say 'That's interesting, I wonder what's happening here. Let's try to reproduce it, and why don't we see if prayers to Thor have the same effect?'.
This is the difference between science and religion, summed up in a simple post. Theists are only interested in proof of what they 'Know'. Science is about investigation, using tools like evidence, logic and reason.
One set of test results aren't proof of a magic man in the sky, and claiming they do draws nothing but well deserved derision to what could otherwise be an interesting set of data.
Crosshair VIII Hero (WIFI), 3900x, 32GB DDR4, Many SSDs, EVGA FTW3 3090, Ethoo 719
pauldarkside (27-03-2008)
Hate to imagine where the plug goes!
There are many situations where "the good" are completely powerless to stop the suffering. An omnipotent being however never is. So it this just tough luck for the victims?
Is it "character building" being killed horribly by chemical weapons?
Christianity is no more plausible than any other religion. Its just been around for longer than many.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
No there are no moral absolutes. Anyone whose ever looked into the subject will conclude there aren't.
Not really. Morals are taught. Otherwise you would expect animals to have morals equivalent in sophistication to humans.
I agree that article is rubbish but I think you are cherry picking.
Morality is nothing more than a baseless, artificial construct, a social form of theatrics and nothing more. People construct entire castles and skyscrapers of belief systems, and everyone's so enamoured by the blinking tower lights and the promised heaven/utopia/moral righteousness up on top that no one bothers to look down and notice that there are no foundations.
Morality is secular theology, in practice. Making something up and then trying to explain it through natural processes, instead of looking at natural processes and extrapolating conclusions.
Again we have the classic confusion between 'objective' and 'universal.' Morality is not universal, but it can be objective. All that is needed for objectivity is flawless application to a set of static criteria.
Now, what is desired of morality is that it be objective as opposed to universal. What static criteria could we employ to build an objective ethic? And here lies the dilemma. Who gets to decide on the criteria?
Religions says there is a universal morality. But whose religion gets to be the arbiter of the universal morality? This problem does not go away when trying to create a morality on objective criteria.
Again, there are radically different views on what morality is. Many religions hold that is its objective and/or universal. Many anti-theists hold that it is relative. The new problem that reductionlist physicalism introduces is the apparent proof that morality does not, and never did exist meaning that arguments over whether or not it is objective is pointless since you would be arguing over nothing. The second problem this creates is that now, there is, and never was, any way to determine if an action is right or wrong. And this is why I argue that morality is a social construct. The reason I find is simple.
Human beings are [B]social animals[\B] and therefore operate within groups. What is generally best for the group is more often than not best for the survival of the group and therefore the individual, so the individual conforms to the social pressures of the group and those social pressure become codes of behaviour. This is why societies develop systems of law. Some systems will punish murderers with death and others don't. There is no inherent right or wrong about capital punishment even if the guilty has performed an ultimate taboo. The killing of individuals within a social group is detrimental to that group. It's a simple as that. In societies whereby the guilty cannot be contained then the death sentence or banishing is the only punishment available. When you then look at conflict, killing becomes the norm because it's required for group survival. Killing is therefore neither good nor bad it's only under the circumstances with which it occurs is it then judged upon.
Whilst your appeal to popularism is a logical fallacy and that game has already been played and won by the evolutionists, it's called Project Steve. The Steve-o-meter currently shows 868 Steves.
Claiming politics is a dirty trick and by doing so you misunderstand the whole scientific concept and it's methods. There has been no paper submitted by creationists to any peer reviewed journal so how can politics come into it? Creationists have tried to get around this by producing their own societies to review their own papers which is laughable. I also find it ironic that you quote Galileo bearing in mind it was not scientists of the time that denied him his theories but a religious organisation because it didn't fit in with dogma.
And this is why the Bible is so heavily questioned.
Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWestern Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc."[74]
So does it? Well we know that it doesn't because by using the scientific method we have proven this statement to be untrue.
So the Holy Spirit was obviously taking a day off when that part was written.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
pollaxe (28-03-2008)
This story is so sad it's unbelievable but it's a good case in point. I guess god wasn't too bothered about this girls suffering and didn't bother to answer her parents prayers.
FOXNews.com - Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Or perhaps God preferred that she came and took her place by his side?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
My only concern is should I hide my true identity? A costume maybe?