Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rule, I seldom read a pile of meandering, ultimately meaningless diatribe like yours that goes in a thousand different directions without saying anything. I cannot possibly address this mess so I'll just go for the last point in bold.
I'm not angry with myself. I didn't create this shamble down here so I'm not responsible for it, God is. He set things up on earth where there isn't a penny's worth of verifiable proof He exists and then He casts 99% of the world into abject misery, disease, pain and poverty and then He does nothing to help them out of it and then He doesn't give us a thing to believe in, least of all a ridiculous book Jesus followers call the Bible which isn't worth the paper it's printed on far as giving us concrete proof He exists. It's riddled with mistakes, contradictions, outright stupid fables of donkeys talking, a man killing 100,000 Philistines with a jawbone, 4 million Hebrews walking in circles in a desert when if they just formed a human chain they could have stretched all the way to Canaan from Egypt, and ridiculous barbaric laws. It has a few good pieces of advice, "Love your neighbor, do unto others, etc but other than that it's worthless.
We're headed for extinction and God doesn't lift a finger. I could be angry at God if I felt it was His job to fix things down here but it isn't His job. He long ago just went AWOL and that was the end of it. There's no point in looking for help from Him because it just isn't coming. If God had any intention of helping us He would have done so long ago.
When I finally realized that God went AWOL millions of years ago I finally realized after years of being a Christian that if God was missing completely from earth then He had absolutely nothing to do with how Christianity got set up. That means Jesus was a figment of men's imaginations and the Bible is a totally human construct with absolutely no divinity involved in it. So the whole thing is a clusterflack and we are stuck with a cataclysmic disaster coming our way that cannot be dealt with. That's the state of things. If you believe in Jesus so much I told you to follow his command and go to Africa and preach to those starving children. Fool them into believing a myth loves them, it might ease the pain in their aching bellies for a while before they die of starvation. Why waste your time over here if you want to be of real use to someone and not just comfortably preaching from your pulpit?
So...the way you address, "Why the inane critique of the action and/or inaction of entities you claimed to be nonexistent?"...is with even more and greater detail about the action and inactions of the Entity you claim does not exist!
You just don't "get it"!
AGAIN: Nonexistent entities are not capable of doing anything, and thus not at fault for any inaction! To assess what a nonexistent thing does or doesn't do is absolutely ridiculous.
That would be like complaining about a mute that speaks too much or not enough! Your argument is so nonsensical it is laughable.
You (and me and others) are capable of keeping some from starving to death...but we don't.
It isn't the nonexistent Omnimax Deities that are insouciantly doing nothing...of course they are doing nothing, they don't exist to do anything. It is humans (like you and me) that actually exist (and could help some, but don't) that deserve the criticism you give those Nonexistent Deities.
I'm so glad you are amused. Cool!
Now...address the point I made.
What logic is there in questioning the action or inaction of entities one claimed to be nonexistent?
I read it, but couldn't see a valid point. I know what your arguments are and you should know what mine are.
Let's just take the hoary old point of why do we question non existent entities?
Because we are demolishing the rationale of those who believe in those entities.
You don't, so that debate needn't concern you. You are a pantheist and we don't mind that at all.
You try various gambits to try to wrongfoot the rationale of atheism. We refute them, you deny it and restate them.
That becomes a pointless exercise after a while. So I just try to give a bit of support to those who do get involved with you.
I read it, but couldn't see a valid point. I know what your arguments are and you should know what mine are.
Let's just take the hoary old point of why do we question non existent entities?
Because we are demolishing the rationale of those who believe in those entities.
You don't, so that debate needn't concern you. You are a pantheist and we don't mind that at all.
You try various gambits to try to wrongfoot the rationale of atheism. We refute them, you deny it and restate them.
That becomes a pointless exercise after a while. So I just try to give a bit of support to those who do get involved with you.
And as you say, it can be amusing.
It is reasonable that those who believe those entities exist discuss what they did or did not do.
And you can never "demolish their rationale", because they can always just break out "Omnimax Power" and "His Thoughts Are Not Your Thoughts, And His Ways Are Not Your Ways" to rationalize anything.
Once one argues that an entity does not exist, any critique of what they did or didn't do is not reasonable and looks ridiculous.
Once Nonexistence is put forth...any argument other than, "Those descriptions of impossible things are metaphorical and allegorical stories by metaphorical characters...to conveys ideas, moral lessons, and philosophical concepts"~PERIOD~...is foolish.
The only reason to go on, and on, and on, and on...is to bash and mock due to bias (sometimes downright hatred) toward them for holding Religious beliefs.
Most are Religious. Religion is the most prolific and influential elective concepts known to humankind.
That's just how it is. You like "truth"? Well, that's the "truth".
Yep. I am sure the problem is equivocation - yet again. They take the idea of unplanned, call it 'chance'/Random' and equivocate that to mean without physical processes and laws - just a formless jumble. No wonder they can't see how complex ordered things, processes and systems came out of it.
They cannot understand how those who are aware of the processes and systems and the means by which they evolved and the time it took, don't have the slightest intellectual problem with seeing the evolutionary process as not only credible, not only supported by evidence all the way but really being inevitable.
Not only this but a lack of understanding that because organisms have arisen through complex evolutionary histories (not a design process), their future evolution is often constrained by traits they have already evolved. For example, even if it were advantageous for an insect to grow in some way other than molting, this switch simply could not happen because molting is embedded in the genetic makeup of insects at many levels.
It's odd how those who don't understand scientific discoveries and data tend to dismiss it as if science does not now know it's own discoveries. This is simply a basic lack of understanding of what the field of science is about.
I bought a whole mountain, and built a huge glass front chalet on it, made from the finest of everything...so I wouldn't be "bothered"...while 3 five cent bowls of rice per day, per person, would save the lives of millions.
A person can't survive (especially a growing child) on rice and water alone. Rice protein is incomplete, meaning it lacks a couple of essential amino acids. Without some alternative source of these amino acids you will die of various nasty malnutrition diseases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
How many bowls could be purchased with the difference between my estate and a small apartment?
It would not matter as rice alone will not keep a person alive and healthy...it will only prolong their suffering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
People buy multi-million dollar paintings...just to look at. Ferraris, yachts, a 4th mansion, Rolex watches, and children have 7 or 8 hundred dollar smartphones. We spend hundreds of millions to explore outer space...for not much more than to satisfy our curiosity...instead of buying basic necessities and medical care for the poor.
You view things from an unrealistic perspective. We individually are not responsible for saving every person on this planet. That's why we have services provided all over this globe to help people and we pay taxes in this country to help support those who are in dire need.
No amount of money in the world is going to solve poverty and starvation. It's not going to be solved by individuals giving up their lives and jobs to run around the world and try to resolve poverty.
And how much time, effort, and money does mankind spend on militaries and waging war?
And what are you going to do about it? What power do you or I have to change this? I can't control when our or other world governments declare war. Sure go talk to my congressman...or vote for the "right" candidate. This will not amount to a hill of beans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
WE are the "selfish and uncaring Powerful Entities" that COULD do something, but DON'T.
Wrong we are not any of the above, however there are many humans who are just that. You exist with an unrealistic reality.
A person can't survive (especially a growing child) on rice and water alone. Rice protein is incomplete, meaning it lacks a couple of essential amino acids. Without some alternative source of these amino acids you will die of various nasty malnutrition diseases.
It would not matter as rice alone will not keep a person alive and healthy...it will only prolong their suffering.
You view things from an unrealistic perspective. We individually are not responsible for saving every person on this planet. That's why we have services provided all over this globe to help people and we pay taxes in this country to help support those who are in dire need.
No amount of money in the world is going to solve poverty and starvation. It's not going to be solved by individuals giving up their lives and jobs to run around the world and try to resolve poverty.
Perhaps you can learn a thing or two from the discussions here: Could poverty ever be eliminated from the world?
And what are you going to do about it? What power do you or I have to change this? I can't control when our or other world governments declare war. Sure go talk to my congressman...or vote for the "right" candidate. This will not amount to a hill of beans.
Wrong we are not any of the above, however there are many humans who are just that. You exist with an unrealistic reality.
That wasn't my point.
Blaming the actions and/or inactions of entities one claimed didn't exist is a common argument...and completely illogical. Nonexistent entities are not capable of doing, or failing to do, anything.
OTOH...humans DO exist, and do fail to help where they could.
I argue that if some claim a God that supposedly could help in some way, is malevolent and terrible for failing to do so...then the humans that could help in some way, but don't, should be adjudicated just as bad.
As far as the "3 five cent bowls of rice per day, per person, would save the lives of millions".
That is true. I never stated that alone would sustain them. But instead of having nothing, they would have something to give them the strength to get more and survive.
My point was that nothing can be blamed upon what nonexistent Deities do or don't do. That which doesn't exist cannot do or fail to do things.
But there are humans that could help, that could choose not to harm...but don't help, and do choose to harm.
I understand WE cannot change this...but that doesn't remove the blame from humankind. The ONLY entities that either help or don't help, harm or prevent harm, are humans. Blaming nonexistent Deities contradicts observations and is an ignorant argument.
It is reasonable that those who believe those entities exist discuss what they did or did not do.
And you can never "demolish their rationale", because they can always just break out "Omnimax Power" and "His Thoughts Are Not Your Thoughts, And His Ways Are Not Your Ways" to rationalize anything.
Once one argues that an entity does not exist, any critique of what they did or didn't do is not reasonable and looks ridiculous.
Once Nonexistence is put forth...any argument other than, "Those descriptions of impossible things are metaphorical and allegorical stories by metaphorical characters...to conveys ideas, moral lessons, and philosophical concepts"~PERIOD~...is foolish.
The only reason to go on, and on, and on, and on...is to bash and mock due to bias (sometimes downright hatred) toward them for holding Religious beliefs.
Most are Religious. Religion is the most prolific and influential elective concepts known to humankind.
That's just how it is. You like "truth"? Well, that's the "truth".
.
It is, if you put it in quotes. However those arguments are not logically sound, and while one can never be sure, logically unsound is a handy add on to factually unvalidated) and your assertion that argument from No Evidence' is somehow invalid is, itself invalid) and means that the Theist arguments of all kinds are unfeasible. And the burden of proof (which you also denied) means that athwism is valid as a logical position. And that means that non -belief is valid, logical and indeed factually feasible, until the believers come up with something better that faith -claims and trying to debunk atheism.
That wasn't my point.
Blaming the actions and/or inactions of entities one claimed didn't exist is a common argument...and completely illogical. Nonexistent entities are not capable of doing, or failing to do, anything.
OTOH...humans DO exist, and do fail to help where they could.
I argue that if some claim a God that supposedly could help in some way, is malevolent and terrible for failing to do so...then the humans that could help in some way, but don't, should be adjudicated just as bad.
As far as the "3 five cent bowls of rice per day, per person, would save the lives of millions".
That is true. I never stated that alone would sustain them. But instead of having nothing, they would have something to give them the strength to get more and survive.
My point was that nothing can be blamed upon what nonexistent Deities do or don't do. That which doesn't exist cannot do or fail to do things.
But there are humans that could help, that could choose not to harm...but don't help, and do choose to harm.
I understand WE cannot change this...but that doesn't remove the blame from humankind. The ONLY entities that either help or don't help, harm or prevent harm, are humans. Blaming nonexistent Deities contradicts observations and is an ignorant argument.
This is true, but -apart from not being your argument which as I recall was suggesting atheists go and feed starving Africans - seems to be misunderstanding the problem of evil, which isn't blaming a god for not doing good, but pointing out that the failure of a god to do any observable good, suggests it isn't there.
That of course doesn't apply to a god that doesn't do anything, but then Why call it God?
You made your argument for that, and the rebuttal is, without evidence of an intention or intelligent direction, "nature' is the term we prefer. Even if natural processes is the reason we are here. You can use whichever term you like.
Pinning the argument on a preferred label seems a pretty thin argument on which to base pages of railing at atheism.
This is true, but -apart from not being your argument which as I recall was suggesting atheists go and feed starving Africans- seems to be misunderstanding the problem of evil, which isn't blaming a god for not doing good, but pointing out that the failure of a god to do any observable good, suggests it isn't there.
That of course doesn't apply to a god that doesn't do anything, but then Why call it God?
You made your argument for that, and the rebuttal is, without evidence of an intention or intelligent direction, "nature' is the term we prefer. Even if natural processes is the reason we are here. You can use whichever term you like.
Pinning the argument on a preferred label seems a pretty thin argument on which to base pages of railing at atheism.
You have become paranoid.
You claim, "...your argument which as I recall was suggesting atheists go and feed starving Africans."
I never singled out Atheists for that. What I actually said, in Post # 201, was: "...there are real people alive today that COULD pay for the three 5 cent bowls of rice per day they need so they won't starve...but instead, they are sooooooo uncaring and evil that they keep their abudance and spend it on jewelry, flatscreens, computers & smart phones, automobiles, vacations, sports and artistic performances, booze, and consume so much more food than they need that many are obese.
Some have many hundreds, some many thousands, some have Millions, some even have BILLIONS!
THEY are the selfish, greedy ones that *could* easily buy the food you need so you won't starve to death...but won't & don't, and indulge themselves instead.
All the people that post on the Religion & Spirituality board of the City-Data website can be included in this list of people that could save you from dying, but don't."
I included everyone. But you are too paranoid to notice.
You still pretend not to understand the difference between terms/words that are "Names" (Like Nature, The Universe, etc) and those that are "Titles" (Like God, Hero, Friend, etc) that are added to those names based upon attributes that produces definitive conformity.
The guy in the U.S. that is titled "President" is STILL named "Donald Trump"...and is titled President because he has attributes that are definitive of meriting the title. The preference to refer to him only as "Donald Trump", or the opinion of some that he does not deserve that title...does not nullify that he IS "President".
The same with The Universe/Nature being titled "God".
The concept of Atheism is illogical...if it is based upon a "No Evidence" premise.
Theism is the current "Standard"...and has been for over a thousand years. Any concept that wants to contest that...will have to prove its case against it. Until then, it will maintain its current position as the "Ruling Viewpoint" based on the consensus of accepted indirect and anecdotal evidence that supports it.
That's how it works in this world. Those that don't like that, notwithstanding.
The concept of Atheism is illogical...if it is based upon a "No Evidence" premise.
Theism is the current "Standard"...and has been for over a thousand years.
How many fundies claim their bible is proof! Their savior or messiah is proof! Walking on water is proof! Being born to a virgin is proof!
The god in their bible says so, therefore it must be proof! LOL!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
