Yet Another Religion Thread

Any topic that doesn't fit elsewhere.
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

Disney Duster wrote:
Super Aurora wrote:You know it's funny how you said you now say you don't believe in genetic(even though there is nothing to believe in to begin with as it's a fact of life) and yet you agree that animals, creature with lower intelligence and incapable of higher reason, and yet you also agree animal can be gay too. Well how think that is? There is the (fucose mutarotase) FucM gene – which influences the levels of estrogen to which the brain is exposed. this has both genetic and psychological aspect to the equation. Humans are same.
Yes animals have genes and actually the Catholic church even believes they have souls, just animal souls which are different and not as high as human souls. But as humans do and think more and have more going on, their choice, to turn that gay gene on, would have more to it, though like I said it's like a choice but not a choice. Complicated? You bet. I'd be fine believing it's not a soul's choice. I'm sure that's easier to understand. But I do believe the soul still turns on that gene or somehow makes the genes what it wants/is.


to the bolded: It's not complicated. It makes absolutely no sense.

Souls by definition is a person or even animals in a state of mind and spirituality. By spirituality it means in state of mind. Hell even by scientific term soul means mind.

What you're basically saying in the bold, is that Gays chooses to be gay as you are saying the soul is what turns the person to become gay or not. You just defeated your own argument.




Disney Duster wrote:
Super Aurora wrote:Oh and Christians borrowed many stuff from the Canaanites religion including the concept of Father(Yahweh) and son(El) god. Hell, the Jewish God and Christian God are completely different Gods all together.

I think what it really is is that the Canaanites became the Jewish people who eventually used the name Yahweh to refer specifically to the God who revealed himself to them as the one and only God.

Never heard Jesus called El before, so, it's a no on that one. And lots of other religions have gods who have kids, as I said there's a lot of gods having children in other religions, but it's not the story of God having the human Mary immaculately have Jesus who is both human and God's son and God himself.



Yes, the Jews technically are descendent of Canaanites. However there are differences between the two. All in all, my point being is that religion has always have adapted ideals and stories from one another. This doesn't just restrict to Judaism or Christianity but other religions as well.

Buddhism is an offspring of Hinduism. East Asians have adapted Buddhism to as a part of their own and blend it in well with their previous religious beliefs.
Numerous Native American tribes share similar similarities in the idea of spirits and traditions etc.

My main point is that Culture from all around have adapted ideals and beliefs and stories from one another due to numerous occurrence, whether it's by migration, foreign interaction and trade, war, or geographically.

If you looked back, I showed that map of the Mediterranean/middle east/asia minor area. When i showed that map, I was pointing out how many civilizations that started out there over time developed new ideas and improvement of their civilization thanks to trading which also thanks to trading, people borrowed religious ideals and belief from one another.

People spread and ideas and beliefs are often carried over there as well.



Disney Duster wrote:Never heard Jesus called El before, so, it's a no on that one. And lots of other religions have gods who have kids, as I said there's a lot of gods having children in other religions, but it's not the story of God having the human Mary immaculately have Jesus who is both human and God's son and God himself.



Jesus was never called El cause he isn't El. El is complete different religious holy figure from a different religion by different group of people. But the parallels between the two are essentially the same.


This isn't the same as the pantheism type religions like Greeks or Egyptians where each god holds a realm over something(god earth, goddess of wind etc) The Canaanites' had the exact type of Father-son as the Christians did(being apart of God but also son of God). Not to mention the God was Yahweh, a name the Jewish essentially took over time but left out any "son".


Disney Duster wrote:For some reason you, Goliath, and many other people in this world think if something's similar to something else it must be "the same idea" and "stolen"?


As I said above, many of ideas and concepts are often borrowed and adapted into their own through time due to numerous reasons.
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

Religious Responses Part 1: Replying to enigmawing
enigmawing wrote:I think Divinity answered that pretty well in the previous post, in that it gives strength to people faced with circumstances they don't want to accept. Even those that don't believe in God often acknowledge the power of prayer in those that do.
Sure, prayer can give people strength, but I would presume it also gives false hope. Wouldn’t it be healthier to accept that prayer is ineffectual? And don’t you dare deny that prayer is ineffectual – I could pray right now, and what I pray for will probably not come true. Now, I know what you’re thinking, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord” and all that, but if I prayed for something like, say, world peace, the cure for cancer, or something to benefit me and my family that is unlikely to happen, it wouldn’t just be to test prayer – yet it still wouldn’t work.
enigmawing wrote:Once again, who are we to dictate what a fair, level playing field would be, or even that life is supposed to be fair to begin with? You act as if you know all the rules that should be dictated by a being that, in theory, is infinitely more intelligent than any human that walks this earth, a being that would likely have concepts that don't mold with where our ever-evolving society is today.
I’ll tell you who we are – we’re human beings. We are able to make the most wondrous of machines and technology, the ability and opportunity to spread happiness, and learn about the fascinating, complex world around us. We are remarkable creatures, and due to our scientific and philosophical understanding of so much, I believe we have every right to consider what a fair, level playing field of life would be. And if life isn’t meant to be fair, then ‘God’ isn’t fair – and therefore, even if I did believe in God, then I wouldn’t like him.
enigmawing wrote:And hypothetically speaking, wouldn't the ability to recognize someone else's suffering and one's reaction to it also be a "test?" The world is more than just a group of individuals going through personal strife; our existence is ultimately much more complex than that, full of strangers, acquaintances, friends, families, communities, etc., and if we are being tested, should we be inhumane and look the other way when someone is sick, starved, bullied, or dying because "oh, that's just God's way of testing them and I shouldn't interfere?" I don't think that's the mentality Duster or anyone else was going for, and I doubt that an omnipotent being would view the world in such a black and white, simplistic existence. If we are being tested, it's likely it wouldn't be only about how we handle our own strife, but it would also gauge our level of compassion for others. I fail to see how anyone would think lifting a finger to help those in need would somehow be destructive of God's so-called plans unless we were meant to be puppets.
I know you and Duster will simply hand-wave this with the fact that ‘God’ is supposedly omnipotent and therefore beyond nature (which is nothing more than an immature, unthinking copout), but all this simply doesn’t make clear sense to me. If somebody’s illness was a test, then a doctor removing this illness would be ruining a part of God’s test, right? And if God’s test is much more complex than that, then how can his testing of our compassion be accurate if all these tests are mingled, mixed and unfair because everyone begins their ‘test’ in a different way? Saying God can simply sort out all these baffling issues is silly, and like I said, nothing more than a copout.
enigmawing wrote:If God exists, I think one of the reasons evil exists is because free will does. No matter what we've been put through, we still have opportunity to make our own choices. We can let our greed, selfishness, and insecurities consume us, or we can try to add good to the world and treat others as we wish to be treated. And we don't even have to let the fear of peers, prison, or Hell influence our decisions . . . hell, I certainly don't. I know I don't always make the right choices, especially when I'm feeling weak or I'm in a situation that's heart-wrenchingly difficult to begin with, but I do the best I can. And really, that's all any of us can do. I've certainly had plenty of moments in my life that I'm not proud of, but would the existence of God be the reason to blame for my actions? After all, he's the one that allows evil to exist in the first place, right?
And that is one of the things that make the character of God so utterly, utterly detestable. I’m glad we have free will, but there’s no other reason for God to have granted us this other than for his own amusement or to test his own power. If you built a number of groundbreaking robots, and were granted the choice of giving them free will or not, which would you choose? In my eyes, the only reasons for why I would give them free will is to see how powerful we now are thanks to science, or for them to entertain me. The motivations of God simply don’t add up to me, and the way he is characterised in the Bible (especially in the Old Testament) is particularly disgusting; as Professor Richard Dawkins so wittily stated, he’s nothing than a spoilt, arrogant, disgusting brat.

Whatever the reason for why ‘God’ allegedly granted us free will, why would he give us the capacity to be what is considered extremely evil? Of course he could give us basic ‘good’ and ‘bad’ choices, but to allow us to cause great pain and misery? To massacre hundreds? To start wars and start a chain event bringing impossible amounts of tears and bloodshed? If ‘God’ was a zookeeper, he’d be putting the predators in with their prey; why should he allow us to be evil enough to cause so much misery? And if he has to give us the choice to be extremely evil in order to somehow unfairly ‘test’ us, then why doesn’t he separate different groups of people into different ‘animal houses’, to continue the zoo analogy I just suggested? Why does he put Hitler in with the Jews? Why does he put the weak in with the strong? Why does he put the most murderous and psychopathic of humans in the same den as the most peaceful and amiable of humans? If he has to test us, then why should he put us through pain and misery in the process? I’ve never seen any teachers whipping and beating their pupils before giving them their grades.
And even if all the sadness and pain so many of us have been put through ends with some kind of heavenly realm of paradise, won’t that just involve us worshipping the grotesque monster who allowed us to be put through such sadness and pain?
enigmawing wrote:The only way to remove evil is to remove free will, and if there's no free will, what's the point? Are we just supposed to be mindless, happy puppets of God, prancing around in order to act out his "plan?" And how could we even begin to appreciate the good in our lives if there was no strife to accompany it? We've all known people that have had practically everything handed to them, and what good does it do them? They only expect more of it without any appreciation (for example, how many have seen the iPhone/new car Christmas tweets?).
I kind of see your point, and maybe we do need strife to appreciate good, but the levels of strife ‘God’ has put humans through in history are ridiculous. Are you saying that the Holocaust helped Jews appreciate the good times they’d had? Did dying in the Twin Towers allow those poor 9/11 victims to be thankful for the happier times they had experienced in the past? We may need strife to make us appreciate the good times in our lives, but to what extent? What about the starving orphans or the ill babies who have NEVER had a happy moment in their lives? And what about those in suffering who are mentally ill and don’t have the ability to properly think? I doubt they’d be able to appreciate their past happy times if they lack the capability to do so.
User avatar
Linden
Special Edition
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:24 am
Location: United States Gender: Female

Post by Linden »

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Religious Responses Part 1: Replying to enigmawing
enigmawing wrote:If God exists, I think one of the reasons evil exists is because free will does. No matter what we've been put through, we still have opportunity to make our own choices. We can let our greed, selfishness, and insecurities consume us, or we can try to add good to the world and treat others as we wish to be treated. And we don't even have to let the fear of peers, prison, or Hell influence our decisions . . . hell, I certainly don't. I know I don't always make the right choices, especially when I'm feeling weak or I'm in a situation that's heart-wrenchingly difficult to begin with, but I do the best I can. And really, that's all any of us can do. I've certainly had plenty of moments in my life that I'm not proud of, but would the existence of God be the reason to blame for my actions? After all, he's the one that allows evil to exist in the first place, right?
And that is one of the things that make the character of God so utterly, utterly detestable. I’m glad we have free will, but there’s no other reason for God to have granted us this other than for his own amusement or to test his own power. If you built a number of groundbreaking robots, and were granted the choice of giving them free will or not, which would you choose? In my eyes, the only reasons for why I would give them free will is to see how powerful we now are thanks to science, or for them to entertain me. The motivations of God simply don’t add up to me, and the way he is characterised in the Bible (especially in the Old Testament) is particularly disgusting; as Professor Richard Dawkins so wittily stated, he’s nothing than a spoilt, arrogant, disgusting brat.

Whatever the reason for why ‘God’ allegedly granted us free will, why would he give us the capacity to be what is considered extremely evil? Of course he could give us basic ‘good’ and ‘bad’ choices, but to allow us to cause great pain and misery? To massacre hundreds? To start wars and start a chain event bringing impossible amounts of tears and bloodshed? If ‘God’ was a zookeeper, he’d be putting the predators in with their prey; why should he allow us to be evil enough to cause so much misery? And if he has to give us the choice to be extremely evil in order to somehow unfairly ‘test’ us, then why doesn’t he separate different groups of people into different ‘animal houses’, to continue the zoo analogy I just suggested? Why does he put Hitler in with the Jews? Why does he put the weak in with the strong? Why does he put the most murderous and psychopathic of humans in the same den as the most peaceful and amiable of humans? If he has to test us, then why should he put us through pain and misery in the process? I’ve never seen any teachers whipping and beating their pupils before giving them their grades.
And even if all the sadness and pain so many of us have been put through ends with some kind of heavenly realm of paradise, won’t that just involve us worshipping the grotesque monster who allowed us to be put through such sadness and pain?
enigmawing wrote:The only way to remove evil is to remove free will, and if there's no free will, what's the point? Are we just supposed to be mindless, happy puppets of God, prancing around in order to act out his "plan?" And how could we even begin to appreciate the good in our lives if there was no strife to accompany it? We've all known people that have had practically everything handed to them, and what good does it do them? They only expect more of it without any appreciation (for example, how many have seen the iPhone/new car Christmas tweets?).
I kind of see your point, and maybe we do need strife to appreciate good, but the levels of strife ‘God’ has put humans through in history are ridiculous. Are you saying that the Holocaust helped Jews appreciate the good times they’d had? Did dying in the Twin Towers allow those poor 9/11 victims to be thankful for the happier times they had experienced in the past? We may need strife to make us appreciate the good times in our lives, but to what extent? What about the starving orphans or the ill babies who have NEVER had a happy moment in their lives? And what about those in suffering who are mentally ill and don’t have the ability to properly think? I doubt they’d be able to appreciate their past happy times if they lack the capability to do so.
I didn't bother back-reading your posts, just this one. So, you'd like the world to be like the Garden of Eden, is that it? Well, God made the Garden of Eden. All perfect and nice and completely without Hitlers and 9/11's and starving African orphans. But what good is it to make a nice place for people you love if they're completely trapped in it? If they have no choice to do anything? God didn't want it that way, so he made it so that Adam and Eve would have choices. And both of them made the wrong choice. That is how sin came into the world. Is that God's fault?

Before the Fall, there was no sin in the world but Satan (and perhaps the fallen angels, depending on how you want to view chronology). That means that God also gave the angels a free will because he didn't want them to be mindless robots either. God gave people (and angels) the ability to control their own actions. That doesn't necessarily mean He is responsible for their actions. In an indirect way, yes, but the only other option is withholding the choice in the first place, which is dictatorial. People have made innumerable bad decisions with their choice, but that is their fault. Should God have hindered their free will and forced them to make better choices? I think you would hardly be pleased with such an arrangement.

You said: "If you built a number of groundbreaking robots, and were granted the choice of giving them free will or not, which would you choose? In my eyes, the only reasons for why I would give them free will is to see how powerful we now are thanks to science, or for them to entertain me." You are forgetting something important: God is love. He loves the people that He made. THAT is why He gave free will. Not because He wanted to entertain Himself or congratulate Himself on his excellent human-making skills.

Dr. Frankenollie, you're obviously very intelligent and think about this a lot. But from the way you phrase things and bring it up so much, I don't think you're open to other possibilities. So, the only reason you can be arguing is to convince others to take up your side. Honestly, I don't understand why it's so important to believe that God either doesn't exist or is a jerk (to put it mildly) if He does. If you believe that, fine I guess. But why try to make others believe it? If your theory's correct, then it doesn't matter what you believe. It makes more sense trying to persuade from the opposite direction because there's an urgent reason to believe it.

Oh my goodness, I'm getting really tired. I hope some of this makes sense. I don't know why I always seem to find these threads late at night. I'll visit this later when I've had some sleep. :)
Image
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13334
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Post by Disney Duster »

Super Aurora, I think the soul is more than state of mind and spirituality. There's so much to it we can't even describe. But as for the choice thing...I mean like...imagine dropping a soul in a zygote, and the soul, even if you do believe it's a state of mind, somehow makes some of the zygote form into a human being the way that it does. It is perfectly possible to believe that some of the extra extrogen a developing fetus gets is because the soul was gay and wanted it to happen. Sure, you and many people probably won't believe it, but you can't prove that's not a possibility.

As for your other stuff, okay, so you can believe that that's how they got their ideas - or are you just saying Christians weren't the first to have a similar idea? Either way, I'm still saying the ideas may be similar but it's perfectly possible that the Jewish people heard God reveal who he was and created Jesus and while they used some old names and such that is what informed their new religion.

I suppose I will answer some of Dr. Frankenollie's part 1 post myself if I feel I should by the time part 2 roles around and he still wishes me to, but that was very good Linden and I agree completey. :clap: And of course you're very intelligent, too. :)
Image
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

Religious Responses Part 2: Disney Duster

@Linden: I'll reply to you in a separate post later tonight.
Disney Duster wrote:You misread what I was saying. I was saying what might be the reason there is still evil in this world, jerk. >: (
No. I didn't misread it, you miswrote it. :P Sorry for calling you 'loony', however.
Disney Duster wrote:But many religions, especially the Christian ones, actually try to help and solve those problems you just posted pictures of. Also, if there were no religion, that would be very oppresive. Freedom of religion is freedom of being aloud to not just believe but share your believes with others and have a community in it.
In the past few decades, admittedly religions have helped set up and support many charities, and I cannot deny that they have helped those in suffering. But then again, religion has caused the Crusades, 9/11, countless cases of infant mutilation, stifled scientific progress, and promoted prejudice.

Maybe religion being disallowed would be oppressive, but considering what it's caused, I think it can be very dangerous, and it is a delusion; why are some mental illnesses and delusions treated and stopped by psychiatrists, yet religious delusions are not?

Furthermore, religion is not the oppressed thing, it is often the oppressor, and I don't think child indoctrination should be allowed. If you want to believe that there's an invisible man in the sky who gave a random species that amount to less than bacteria in comparison to him with souls that would go to either a paradise or a spiritual torture chamber, depending on how each of them behaved, then go ahead, but don't brainwash your children into doing the same.
Disney Duster wrote:I thought you were saying you hate your life so much you want to be in Heaven now. If you do not hate your life so much wouldn't you rather continue this journey in the world learning things and proving yourself against challenges before you enter a world where everything's perfect and happy?
I don't 'hate my life so much', but in comparison to the fictitious realm of Heaven it would be like, well, Hell. Even though life offers education and challenges, it can be frequently frustrating, upsetting and harrowing for everyone; besides, plenty of people don't enjoy life in the slightest, like those in poverty and third world countries.
Disney Duster wrote:For crying out loud some of the things you love are based on challenges and conflicts, like the movies you to talk about at length. But for very reasons like that, that we must go through challenges and prove ourselves worthy of heaven is why we can't have heaven now. Your parents love you but they only give you certain extra things when you earn them yet you think God is unloving for doing that as well.
I know movies I love are about challenges and conflict, but that is completely irrelevant. There are war and horror movies that I like, but I wouldn't like to be in the situations shown in those films! :roll: And WHY must we prove ourselves worthy of Heaven? Who dictates these ethics? What sane person would believe that countless humans going through decades of suffering and sadness is okay, simply to earn God's love?
Disney Duster wrote:And maybe some or all of them went to a place of eternal bliss. But I must point out, praying to other gods is actually a sin and not the kind of thing that would make God want to spare them of their deaths, not that I'm saying that's exactly what happened but it is a thought.
Well if they had to go through intense pain and suffering before going to a place of eternal bliss, I don't think that's very 'loving' of God. As for the fact that it may have been a sin to pray to other gods...if God does exist and showed these Jews no mercy because of the other deities they prayed to, then God is a sick, twisted, evil monster.
Disney Duster wrote:No I meant that if there was really more bad than good, than the majority of people wouldn't make movies that showed good being most important and winning just to escape, because if most people were really bad than they would like to make movies that showed bad winning or that bad was good.
I have to say Duster, I think this argument is rather irrelevant; besides, who's to say that the things we consider to be 'good' aren't actually 'bad'? Maybe movies are mostly about 'bad' winning after all, if you looked at it from an alternative viewpoint. I'm not saying that things like murder are good, I'm just open-minded when it comes to ethics. You get your morals from thousand year-old desert scrolls; I try and live by morals that are well thought out, and based upon, well, intelligent design. :wink:
Disney Duster wrote:But I must say wow if you really think generally that Christians aren't good people and that they want to murder each other, you have an extremely negative and rather wicked view. It makes you sound more like a monster than the way you thought of God. I do not think you are one but I'm telling you what you sound like. I hope that something happens to make you happier and not think so badly. I have no idea what to do. I mean, how is your life dude?
In general, I think most Christians don't really think about their religions (various censuses have proven that on average atheists know more about religious holy books than the followers of said holy books themselves) and are therefore not all of them are bad people. However, the Christian extremists and literalists are usually bad people, and when considering how many Christians tell people like Richard Dawkins that they can't wait for them to burn in Hell, I think a lot of Christians and followers of other religions are genuinely bad people. Furthermore, if there weren't any laws and nobody believed in God, I think many people would murder others all the time.

Secondly...I have a wicked view? You think I sound like a monster? Coming from a delusional Christian like you, I take that as a compliment. Thank you.
Disney Duster wrote:No I think if you don't believe you will get some retribution, but perhaps even non-believers will get into Heaven. All I know is that you should believe. There's no reason it would be bad for you not to believe, it could only help.
Tell that to women, gypsies and homosexuals persecuted by religion. Tell that to the victims of 9/11. Tell that to the victims of the Crusades...
Disney Duster wrote:The fact you have such a vendetta against it shows it's not that you really don't believe. You are purposely choosing not to and don't want to listen to anyone who can explain why your reasons for not believing don't fly since there is no reason. You can some up with excuses but there's really no specific reason. Believing isn't supposed to be based on evidence yet you say that's what you need. That leads into a nonsensical circle because you are supposed to believe without evidence, other than existence itself and the Bible.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xsj1UWol7l8" frameborder="0"></iframe>

(specific part from 0:52 onwards)

Duster, I AM open-minded, but the probability of God's existence (his existence cannot yet be scientifically proved or disproved) is highly unlikely to me, and as there is no real, concrete, factual, undoubtable evidence suggesting that he exists, I ignore the possibility of his existence. I have a sort-of vendetta against religion because I think it's dangerous and, at the very least, child indoctrination/brainwashing should be stopped.
Disney Duster wrote:And if you are really thinking of all the pain in the world why are you spending so much time just thinking about it instead of spending more of that time trying to help people like that, because a lot of those problems are caused at least in part by people, with their own wills, which God doesn't control, and it is people's wills that can also try to solve those problems and maybe you should join them because maybe that's what God wants you to do and a lot of Christians are doing it.
A lot of non-Christians are doing it too, but I see your point. I want to help end the pain in the world and intend on doing a lot of charity work in the future.
Disney Duster wrote:But how I currently view it as that either the men of the Bible meant that you shouldn't rape a man to have pleasure because most men of that time were really only interested in woman but sometimes raped men for pleasure, or that the men put it in their when God didn't want them to and people need to figure out that's their word and not God's just like I may be doing now.
The first possibility is a ridiculous inference from the blatant homophobia in the Old Testament; as for the second possibility...well, what could possibly make you think that one part of the Bible isn't God's word or not?

The Bible is the only source of information a Christian can turn to, but when Christians notice contradictions, they usually think "Hey, the Old Testament was just a misinterpretation of God's word and full of dated stuff that people wanted you to believe back then, but the New Testament is the real word of God!" The only fucking reason Christians favour the New over the Old is because the New is ethically closer to the popular and modern beliefs of what's right and wrong.

Imagine a parallel universe, where slavery, sexism and homophobia was not abolished in the developed world, but flourished, and hierarchies formed. In that universe, Christians would think "Hey, the New Testament was just a misinterpretation of God's word and full of dated stuff people wanted you to believe back then, but the Old Testament is the real word of God!"

Why do you doubt that homophobia was being promoted by 'God', but you have no doubt that equality and peace weren't? It's because, separately from the Bible, humans have used rational and empathetic thought to work out, wait a minute, slavery is bad! Racism is bad! Homophobia is bad!

And as a result, religion is struggling to stay relevant, and the people who want to keep religion intact (probably due to fear of death and/or brainwashing from early childhood) try and hide the parts of their Holy Books which are now seen as evil, and pick out the handful of parts which would now be seen as good, like some of the things Jesus allegedly said and 'the Golden Rule', etc.
Disney Duster wrote:And I think enigmawing's response covers anything else I want to.
I think that my response to enigmawing (which I can't wait for her to respond to) covers anything else I want to. :wink:
User avatar
Heartless
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:56 pm

Post by Heartless »

Disney Duster wrote:Super Aurora, I think the soul is more than state of mind and spirituality. There's so much to it we can't even describe. But as for the choice thing...I mean like...imagine dropping a soul in a zygote, and the soul, even if you do believe it's a state of mind, somehow makes some of the zygote form into a human being the way that it does. It is perfectly possible to believe that some of the extra extrogen a developing fetus gets is because the soul was gay and wanted it to happen. Sure, you and many people probably won't believe it, but you can't prove that's not a possibility.
This is completely based on something you just made up. To say that its possible just because none of us can prove you wrong is like saying that its completely possible that there are invisible 4-headed unicorns living among us in our world. You cannot prove me wrong in anyway, so its a possibility.

Like others have said, you base your discussion on your own beliefs and made up arguments. We could be having a discussion on whether or not invisible unicorns were living among us, and you could never prove me wrong because I could continue to make up my own arguments that would continue to pose "possibilities" of their existence.
Image
"Good and bad are labels created by people. Nature doesn't have such concepts."
User avatar
ajmrowland
Signature Collection
Posts: 8177
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
Location: Appleton, WI

Post by ajmrowland »

well, there is a scientific theory of multiple universes occupying the same space.
Image
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

I apologise for the delay in reply, Linden. :oops:

@Disney Duster and enigmawing: I eagerly await both your responses.
Linden wrote:So, you'd like the world to be like the Garden of Eden, is that it? Well, God made the Garden of Eden. All perfect and nice and completely without Hitlers and 9/11's and starving African orphans. But what good is it to make a nice place for people you love if they're completely trapped in it? If they have no choice to do anything? God didn't want it that way, so he made it so that Adam and Eve would have choices. And both of them made the wrong choice. That is how sin came into the world. Is that God's fault?
*dramatically takes off glasses*

Imagine a king, who ruled over a powerful and prosperous land many centuries ago. Unlike the monarchs who reigned over this glorious nation before him, he decided to help the peasants, providing them with delicious food aplenty and drastically reducing the amount of labour they had to do. However, one of these peasants broke one of the King's laws, a law which had been made quite clear on the first day the peasants were treated like royalty.

Therefore, the King sent all of these peasants out of the beautiful capital of his nation, letting them struggle in the wildnerness alone. Even when the peasant who had broken the law and his family were long since dead, the King refused to allow any peasant back into the capital.

Linden, if everything the Bible said is true (contradictions and all), and Eve really did steal from the Tree of Knowledge, an act which God had forbidden...why the bloody hell would we be held to blame for that act?! Couldn't God have let Adam and Eve's future family back into Eden later on? Obviously, they had nothing to do with Eve stealing from the Tree of Knowledge. Just because we're the same species as Adam and Eve doesn't mean we can be held culpable for their actions! Just because Adam and Eve made the wrong choices doesn't mean that every other single man and woman in the history of the universe would do the same!
Linden wrote:God gave people (and angels) the ability to control their own actions. That doesn't necessarily mean He is responsible for their actions. In an indirect way, yes, but the only other option is withholding the choice in the first place, which is dictatorial. People have made innumerable bad decisions with their choice, but that is their fault. Should God have hindered their free will and forced them to make better choices? I think you would hardly be pleased with such an arrangement.
No, I wouldn't be entirely pleased with such an arrangement, but a world in which the only problem is that bad people don't have true freedom is a better world than one in which bad people are allowed by God to roam free, and murder, rape and torture each day. Also, allow me to reiterate something from one of my previous posts: why did God put the strong in with the weak? The psychopaths in with the innocent? Hitler in with the Jews?

A better ruler of the universe would not allow the extent of free will and freedom of the sentient to be so great as to cause pain and misery a billion times over.
Linden wrote:You are forgetting something important: God is love. He loves the people that He made. THAT is why He gave free will. Not because He wanted to entertain Himself or congratulate Himself on his excellent human-making skills.
But if he exists, then we are less than virus cells in comparison to him - why would he care about us? We're irrelevant and tiny (relatively speaking).
Linden wrote:Dr. Frankenollie, you're obviously very intelligent and think about this a lot. But from the way you phrase things and bring it up so much, I don't think you're open to other possibilities. So, the only reason you can be arguing is to convince others to take up your side. Honestly, I don't understand why it's so important to believe that God either doesn't exist or is a jerk (to put it mildly) if He does. If you believe that, fine I guess. But why try to make others believe it? If your theory's correct, then it doesn't matter what you believe. It makes more sense trying to persuade from the opposite direction because there's an urgent reason to believe it.
I am open-minded; several times during this thread, I have said when others make good points, and if there was even a shred of evidence for God's existence, I would begin to re-evaluate my current beliefs.
Last edited by Dr Frankenollie on Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

Linden wrote:Honestly, I don't understand why it's so important to believe that God either doesn't exist or is a jerk (to put it mildly) if He does. If you believe that, fine I guess. But why try to make others believe it?
I think the Doc, like me, is of the opinion that religion holds us back from making progress as a species. I think a lot less people would be eager to blow themselves up on suicide missions when they knew there was no after-life and no heavenly rewards. Just look at what's happening in Nigeria this last week: over 900 people have been murdered by the Boko Haram, a militant islamic group who wants to overthrow the government to install an ultra-conservative Islamist government and implement stric Sharia law. Imagine those people not believing in any God... gone is their motivation to do harm!

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No Hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

Bumperty-bumperty-bump. C'mon, I want replies! :P
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sb2uB4_7CBY" frameborder="0"></iframe>
User avatar
Elladorine
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4372
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: SouthernCaliforniaLiscious SunnyWingadocious
Contact:

Post by Elladorine »

Frankenollie . . . no offense, but I'm not sure I'm in the right mind frame to continue this discussion. I'll do my best though.
Dr Frankenollie wrote:Sure, prayer can give people strength, but I would presume it also gives false hope. Wouldn’t it be healthier to accept that prayer is ineffectual? And don’t you dare deny that prayer is ineffectual – I could pray right now, and what I pray for will probably not come true. Now, I know what you’re thinking, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord” and all that, but if I prayed for something like, say, world peace, the cure for cancer, or something to benefit me and my family that is unlikely to happen, it wouldn’t just be to test prayer – yet it still wouldn’t work.
"Thou shalt not tempt the Lord" was the last thing on my mind, in fact I'm not really familiar with the phrase. Despite what I've been discussing in this thread, I'm not overly religious. In fact, my beliefs don't follow much of the bible, if at all (I'm even guessing you know the bible better than I do). I did actually spend a lot of time being angry with God over what he "allowed" to happen to me as I was growing up, and it's something I had to work through in my own mind in order to get over. People are reactive. They hurt others because they've been hurt themselves. It's up to our individual selves to break that potentially viscious cycle, not to blame an other-worldly being for "allowing" bad things to happen.

And obviously, prayer isn't the same as making a wish upon a star and expecting it to be granted, although I think that's the main argument the non-religious make against it. But perhaps it does indeed offer those that believe the strength to work through difficult events. And I don't know, maybe not granting such grandiose prayers (which basically amount to as wishes) just shows that we have to work hard for ourselves and others, and not to rely on just sitting back and praying for things to get done that perhaps shouldn't be. And I don't think anyone that prays seriously believes that world peace or a cure for cancer will spontaneously appear overnight, so I'm not sure how it gives false hope . . . it's more like meditation. Goodness knows I have a lot to work through myself right now; it's not as if a prayer will bring back the baby I just lost but it's possible it may offer me comfort by helping me sort out my feelings.
Dr Frankenollie wrote:I’ll tell you who we are – we’re human beings. We are able to make the most wondrous of machines and technology, the ability and opportunity to spread happiness, and learn about the fascinating, complex world around us. We are remarkable creatures, and due to our scientific and philosophical understanding of so much, I believe we have every right to consider what a fair, level playing field of life would be. And if life isn’t meant to be fair, then ‘God’ isn’t fair – and therefore, even if I did believe in God, then I wouldn’t like him.
Yes, we're human beings . . .

But I still maintain that a fair, level playing field is impossible for us to fathom, given the vast amount of differences and challenges we each face. More on that in a minute . . .
Dr Frankenollie wrote:I know you and Duster will simply hand-wave this with the fact that ‘God’ is supposedly omnipotent and therefore beyond nature (which is nothing more than an immature, unthinking copout), but all this simply doesn’t make clear sense to me. If somebody’s illness was a test, then a doctor removing this illness would be ruining a part of God’s test, right? And if God’s test is much more complex than that, then how can his testing of our compassion be accurate if all these tests are mingled, mixed and unfair because everyone begins their ‘test’ in a different way? Saying God can simply sort out all these baffling issues is silly, and like I said, nothing more than a copout.
Immature, unthinking cop-out. Well gee, thanks. :roll: Going by your own example, why are you only seeing the patient's illness as a test but not the doctor's ability to treat? You could easily reverse that . . . is the patient's illness interfering with God's plan of the doctor being able to treat all his patients? That may sound silly on the surface but you have to be able to look at this from all angles. This isn't an SAT test, and like before, you're failing to see the big picture. The thing is that every life has its own challenges. This isn't about comparing one's "score" to anyone else's, this is a personal, individual thing. My mother died when I was a teenager; going by this logic, are you saying that everyone's mother has to have died when they were teenagers in order for things to be fair to me? Or should all people live to a certain age in order for things to be fair for everyone? We can't all live the same lives, it's just impossible. I could have chosen to be angry about my mother's death and lash out at people, or I could have chosen to become sympathetic and try to help others in a similar situation. In the end, it's my choice, because I have that free will. And hypothetically speaking, if God did indeed create the universe and everything in it, wouldn't it be expected that he'd have the ability to judge how everyone handled the challenges they faced throughout their lives? If he really can see into our hearts (metaphorically speaking of course) he'd know whether or not we'd lead a good, honest life, not only in spite of the difficulties we've faced, but even because of them.
Dr Frankenollie wrote:And that is one of the things that make the character of God so utterly, utterly detestable. I’m glad we have free will, but there’s no other reason for God to have granted us this other than for his own amusement or to test his own power.
What about love?
Dr Frankenollie wrote:If you built a number of groundbreaking robots, and were granted the choice of giving them free will or not, which would you choose? In my eyes, the only reasons for why I would give them free will is to see how powerful we now are thanks to science, or for them to entertain me. The motivations of God simply don’t add up to me, and the way he is characterised in the Bible (especially in the Old Testament) is particularly disgusting; as Professor Richard Dawkins so wittily stated, he’s nothing than a spoilt, arrogant, disgusting brat.
As you previously said and as I pointed out, yes, we're human beings. So . . . you're comparing humans to robots? Seriously? Let's put the factor of emotions back in the equation, which requires beings of a more organic nature.

So how about this . . . let's say you have children. Could you love a robot as much as you would a family member? Would you want to control your own children as robots or would you want them to have free will? Because children . . . and people in general for that matter, need to be allowed to make their own mistakes. To be human. To be loving and selfish and giving and possessive. To be passionate and outraged over the wrongs being done to themselves and others. To get off their asses and do something to help those in need, not to just sit back and hope/wish/pray for a better world. To make their own decisions, even if they're the wrong ones that end up hurting themselves and others.

Your comments are somehow making me think of people that spend their entire lives blaming their parents for their personal misery for not offering them a better childhood. Not that you're personally saying that yourself of course, but it's a similar mindset: "My parents are spoilt, arrogant, selfish brats because they didn't protect me from all the bad stuff and hand me everything I needed!" I just think it's up to us to make the most of the lives we've been given in the first place, even if the conditions weren't ideal or the same as your friend and neighbors.
Dr Frankenollie wrote:Whatever the reason for why ‘God’ allegedly granted us free will, why would he give us the capacity to be what is considered extremely evil? Of course he could give us basic ‘good’ and ‘bad’ choices, but to allow us to cause great pain and misery? To massacre hundreds? To start wars and start a chain event bringing impossible amounts of tears and bloodshed? If ‘God’ was a zookeeper, he’d be putting the predators in with their prey; why should he allow us to be evil enough to cause so much misery? And if he has to give us the choice to be extremely evil in order to somehow unfairly ‘test’ us, then why doesn’t he separate different groups of people into different ‘animal houses’, to continue the zoo analogy I just suggested? Why does he put Hitler in with the Jews? Why does he put the weak in with the strong? Why does he put the most murderous and psychopathic of humans in the same den as the most peaceful and amiable of humans? If he has to test us, then why should he put us through pain and misery in the process? I’ve never seen any teachers whipping and beating their pupils before giving them their grades.
And now you're comparing humans to zoo animals . . . and suggesting segregation. Nice, lol. Didn't matter that Hitler was "placed" with the Jews. Probably didn't matter who he was "placed" with at all . . . given the circumstances, he'd have attacked any group that was an easy target. And remember, Hitler didn't do it all by himself. While many did fight against the Nazis, there were also many that were quick to look the other way or join in on the blaming of the Jews for everything since they were afraid of being targets themselve or were simply desperate for the easy cop-out that Hitler was offering them (which is how he became so powerful). As for separating the weak from the strong, throwing a bunch of people together with the same weaknesses is actually a pretty bad idea, as they are unable to support each other properly (just ask any therapist that warns against dating within a support group). And keep in mind that the strong don't automatically take advantage of the weak, quite often they actually do help them.

You're implying that if God exists, he should actively meddle with the mortal plane. I do know some people believe that he does (along with the devil), but I'm not one of them (my personal beliefs are probably not far from some of Super Aurora's).

By the way, pain is a requirement of living. We never know what's wrong without the pain, what needs to be worked on, or when we need to step back. I think the only cap of the threshold is death, to be honest. Are you suggesting we not feel pain when something severely bad happens, or are you saying that God should prevent those bad things from happening in the first place by controlling us like robots or segregating us into a zoo-like world?
Dr Frankenollie wrote:And even if all the sadness and pain so many of us have been put through ends with some kind of heavenly realm of paradise, won’t that just involve us worshipping the grotesque monster who allowed us to be put through such sadness and pain?
Well, I suppose my parents were grotesque monsters allowing my teenaged brother to venture out and make his own decisions, instead of keeping him protected in a plastic bubble or controlling his thoughts and actions like a robot. And he was killed in a drinking and driving accident. Perhaps God, like our parents, simply hopes we make the right decisions, and maybe even feels the pain right along with us.
Dr Frankenollie wrote:I kind of see your point, and maybe we do need strife to appreciate good, but the levels of strife ‘God’ has put humans through in history are ridiculous. Are you saying that the Holocaust helped Jews appreciate the good times they’d had? Did dying in the Twin Towers allow those poor 9/11 victims to be thankful for the happier times they had experienced in the past? We may need strife to make us appreciate the good times in our lives, but to what extent? What about the starving orphans or the ill babies who have NEVER had a happy moment in their lives? And what about those in suffering who are mentally ill and don’t have the ability to properly think? I doubt they’d be able to appreciate their past happy times if they lack the capability to do so.
Once again, you're missing the big picture. It's not about individuals alone. Perhaps the Holocaust served as a warning to the entire world about the dangers of letting so much power reside in a handful of individuals. And 9/11 brought the Americans together. Not saying what happened wasn't absolutely horrendous, it obviously was. But people with free will allowed these things to happen, not a higher being. Were you expecting God to swoop in and steer the aircrafts away from the Twin Towers? I don't believe he meddles that way. And I won't pretend to have the answers for everything. I don't know why babies have to suffer, or why some are born with mental illness. And I certainly don't know why my baby had to die before it even had the chance to be born, or why I had to endure so much physical pain on top of the mental anguish over it. And I certainly don't know why my best friend from high school made a passive-aggressive post on her facebook wall claiming that I made up the whole pregnancy and miscarriage just for the attention. :( I can't even look in the abortion thread anymore that you chose to start yet barely participated in, due to all the "mass of cells" arguments I recall seeing in it. Someone made a comparison of having an abortion to chopping off an arm . . . but you know what, I'd have much rather chopped off my arm than lose the life that was growing inside me. But there's nothing I can do except take time to grieve and move forward, and perhaps offer sympathy and comfort to those that have been in a similar situation.

And once again, I see you complaining profusely about the evils of the world . . . but I've found those that complain the loudest often seem to do the least about it. What do you do to ease the all the pain you see? Do you do volunteer work? Do you donate to the homeless, help the needy? Pick someone up that has fallen? Or do you belittle the religious over the broad statement that it's all in God's hands and argue with them over believing in a being that supposedly "allows" bad things to happen in the first place? Do you see a dark world of suffering because either there is no God, or that he must be a bastard of one if he does exist? Do you have any hope for this world, regardless? We could sit here and argue about the existence of God for the rest of our lives, but in the end, what good does it do? I won't change your mind and I doubt you'll change mine. Nothing personal, but I doubt I'll post further replies in this thread for a while, if ever. Not because "dammit, I'm right and you're not," but because this kind of arguing just leaves me frustrated and weary, especially at a time like this.

All the best.
Image
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

enigmawing wrote:You're implying that if God exists, he should actively meddle with the mortal plane. I do know some people believe that he does (along with the devil), but I'm not one of them (my personal beliefs are probably not far from some of Super Aurora's).
Yeah I'm a deist. I believe there is some sort of God or supreme divine being, however, I see it a neutral being who doesn't really interfere with any worlds and has no "alliance" sides(Good and evil) either. In fact good and evil is a subjective idea that we human percheive to be.
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

enigmawing wrote:Frankenollie . . . no offense, but I'm not sure I'm in the right mind frame to continue this discussion. I'll do my best though.
Okay. I won't mind too much if you don't reply to me immediately, or ever.
enigmawing wrote:People are reactive. They hurt others because they've been hurt themselves. It's up to our individual selves to break that potentially viscious cycle, not to blame an other-worldly being for "allowing" bad things to happen.
You're right; we should break the cycle of inclicting pain because of pain. I do not blame 'God' for anything, obviously because I do not believe in him. However, if he is real, then I think he should be held culpable for numerous natural disasters, illnesses, et cetera, because if he designed the universe, then he designed those (or at least their causes).
enigmawing wrote:And obviously, prayer isn't the same as making a wish upon a star and expecting it to be granted, although I think that's the main argument the non-religious make against it. But perhaps it does indeed offer those that believe the strength to work through difficult events. And I don't know, maybe not granting such grandiose prayers (which basically amount to as wishes) just shows that we have to work hard for ourselves and others, and not to rely on just sitting back and praying for things to get done that perhaps shouldn't be.
If God didn’t want us to sit back and let prayers do the work for us, then why in many Holy Books (especially the Bible) is it repeatedly stated that whatever you pray for will come true? It doesn’t matter what any of us say – if ‘God’ says he can do everything for us, then who are we to suggest that we should earn our goals and work hard instead?
enigmawing wrote:And I don't think anyone that prays seriously believes that world peace or a cure for cancer will spontaneously appear overnight, so I'm not sure how it gives false hope . . . it's more like meditation. Goodness knows I have a lot to work through myself right now; it's not as if a prayer will bring back the baby I just lost but it's possible it may offer me comfort by helping me sort out my feelings.
But if it was a simpler, less grandiose prayer, then the person praying may hope that it would come true...you know, false hope. I hardly think that prayer is good medication, especially with the much healthier alternatives. (As a side note – I’m sorry that you lost your baby, and I hope you are emotionally recovering. I thought I’d said something like this in the off-topic thread in which you informed UD of the sad news, but it turns out I haven’t. Sorry).
enigmawing wrote:Going by your own example, why are you only seeing the patient's illness as a test but not the doctor's ability to treat?
Because earlier someone had said that all suffering was a test; the hypothetical patient’s illness can obviously be seen as suffering.
enigmawing wrote:This isn't an SAT test, and like before, you're failing to see the big picture. The thing is that every life has its own challenges. This isn't about comparing one's "score" to anyone else's, this is a personal, individual thing. My mother died when I was a teenager; going by this logic, are you saying that everyone's mother has to have died when they were teenagers in order for things to be fair to me?
If God wants to fairly test us then...yes. Of course it would be horrible and nobody deserves to go through the pain it causes (I know this probably means nothing, but I’m sorry that your mother died when you were so young – you don’t deserve to have suffered so much), but looking at it logically and scientifically – if God is testing us, then the variables should be the same.
enigmawing wrote:Or should all people live to a certain age in order for things to be fair for everyone? We can't all live the same lives, it's just impossible.
Exactly – that’s one of the points I tried to make earlier. We can’t all live the same lives, so therefore the “Suffering = God’s Test” theory is ridiculous.
enigmawing wrote:And hypothetically speaking, if God did indeed create the universe and everything in it, wouldn't it be expected that he'd have the ability to judge how everyone handled the challenges they faced throughout their lives? If he really can see into our hearts (metaphorically speaking of course) he'd know whether or not we'd lead a good, honest life, not only in spite of the difficulties we've faced, but even because of them.
Okay...maybe because God is supposedly so omnipotent, all-powerful, and all-knowing (even though this is utterly impossible and there is not the slightest bit of evidence for it), then maybe he would be able to accurately determine whether we’ve lived good, honest lives or not. Theoretically speaking, then maybe God wouldn’t need all the variables in his grand test to be the same – I’ll give you that.
enigmawing wrote:So how about this . . . let's say you have children. Could you love a robot as much as you would a family member? Would you want to control your own children as robots or would you want them to have free will? Because children . . . and people in general for that matter, need to be allowed to make their own mistakes. To be human. To be loving and selfish and giving and possessive. To be passionate and outraged over the wrongs being done to themselves and others. To get off their asses and do something to help those in need, not to just sit back and hope/wish/pray for a better world. To make their own decisions, even if they're the wrong ones that end up hurting themselves and others.
Alright, humans aren’t robots. God, if he somehow is there, would have granted us free will out of love. I can somewhat see why you would think that. But even though you make good points...I’m not sure if the extent of free will we have should have been granted by ‘God’ (theoretically speaking, of course). Letting us make mistakes is one thing, but giving some of us the means to massacre millions?
enigmawing wrote:Your comments are somehow making me think of people that spend their entire lives blaming their parents for their personal misery for not offering them a better childhood. Not that you're personally saying that yourself of course, but it's a similar mindset: "My parents are spoilt, arrogant, selfish brats because they didn't protect me from all the bad stuff and hand me everything I needed!" I just think it's up to us to make the most of the lives we've been given in the first place, even if the conditions weren't ideal or the same as your friend and neighbors.
I see what you mean, but I don’t think any good parents would allow some of their children to get raped, or tortured, or murdered, et cetera, although it seems ‘God’ would allow this. Once again, allowing us to make mistakes and giving us independence is one thing, but not trying to help when we’re in peril and devastating pain?
enigmawing wrote:And now you're comparing humans to zoo animals . . . and suggesting segregation. Nice, lol.
It was merely an analogy to make a point. And the segregation I was suggesting was, for example, to put psychopaths into a different ‘den’ to orphaned children. That kind of ‘segregation’ is already in practice, and I’m sure you’re fine with it. Please don’t twist my words to make me look bad.
enigmawing wrote:Didn't matter that Hitler was "placed" with the Jews. Probably didn't matter who he was "placed" with at all . . . given the circumstances, he'd have attacked any group that was an easy target.
You’re right, but this is irrelevant. I was just using another example of the point I was making.
enigmawing wrote:As for separating the weak from the strong, throwing a bunch of people together with the same weaknesses is actually a pretty bad idea, as they are unable to support each other properly (just ask any therapist that warns against dating within a support group). And keep in mind that the strong don't automatically take advantage of the weak, quite often they actually do help them.
Maybe saying ‘putting the weak in with the strong’ was a bad example; my point was that it seems like ‘God’ puts the most evilest and powerful of people in with the most defenceless and innocent of us.
enigmawing wrote:By the way, pain is a requirement of living. We never know what's wrong without the pain, what needs to be worked on, or when we need to step back. I think the only cap of the threshold is death, to be honest. Are you suggesting we not feel pain when something severely bad happens, or are you saying that God should prevent those bad things from happening in the first place by controlling us like robots or segregating us into a zoo-like world?
Once again, you’re twisting my words. Of course we should feel pain. Of course we should make mistakes so we can learn from them. What I’m saying is that God should control us in the same way an ideal government would control us – giving us freedom but not allowing us to harm each other dangerously. Furthermore, as I’ve said, the segregation I was talking about was like keeping paedophiles away from children. Or do you think we shouldn’t even have that kind of segregation? :roll:
enigmawing wrote:Well, I suppose my parents were grotesque monsters allowing my teenaged brother to venture out and make his own decisions, instead of keeping him protected in a plastic bubble or controlling his thoughts and actions like a robot. And he was killed in a drinking and driving accident. Perhaps God, like our parents, simply hopes we make the right decisions, and maybe even feels the pain right along with us.
But nobody’s parents put actual dangers in place, like God does if he exists and designed the universe/is all-knowing. ‘God’ didn’t have to make the Earth’s crust be split up into tectonic plates which can cause harmful volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. Besides, as I’ve said several times now, I don’t think the ideal God should control us like robots – if he exists, he should allow us to make mistakes, but not the kind of mistakes which can wipe out billions of innocents.
enigmawing wrote:Were you expecting God to swoop in and steer the aircrafts away from the Twin Towers? I don't believe he meddles that way.
Of course not – I don’t believe he’s there. But if he is there, then he should have steered the aircrafts away from the Twin Towers. Good parents try to protect their children. God doesn’t sound like a good parent, but more like an incredibly unloving one.
enigmawing wrote:I can't even look in the abortion thread anymore that you chose to start yet barely participated in, due to all the "mass of cells" arguments I recall seeing in it.
So what if I barely participated in it? Loads of members do that. Is that suddenly a crime? I wasn’t sure of what my stance on the matter was, so I was asking the people here what they thought of it and why. Besides, this is utterly irrelevant.
enigmawing wrote:And once again, I see you complaining profusely about the evils of the world . . . but I've found those that complain the loudest often seem to do the least about it. What do you do to ease the all the pain you see? Do you do volunteer work? Do you donate to the homeless, help the needy? Pick someone up that has fallen?
I try to help the world, and I want to.
enigmawing wrote:We could sit here and argue about the existence of God for the rest of our lives, but in the end, what good does it do?
Seeing as religion is responsible for the Crusades, 9/11, a billion wars, and numerous cases of prejudice and discrimination against minorities throughout history...I think that if religion was non-existent, there’d be a lot less pain and misery.
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 15773
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Post by Disney's Divinity »

Personally, I think there would be the same amount of pain and misery in the world whether or not religion exists. People will always be cruel and selfish. Religion's just a common excuse.
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"
User avatar
Heartless
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:56 pm

Post by Heartless »

Enigmawing, your response was spot on. Very well written and some nicely thought out ideas, especially with your current emotional state. I agree with you for the most part. :)

I think where Dr. Ollie and I differ in beliefs is that I could care less if there is a God out there or not, and therefore do not care about blaming a god for things (even if he was real). In the past I have commented to several people trying to point out some general flaws I saw in certain beliefs, or posed questions to them, but this is solely to try to get others to think more openly and less close-mindedly (which Ollie may in fact be doing as well, but he seems to be taking a different approach with some different beliefs than I am. Some of his arguments seem unimportant to what my goal is). My point is, I think people in general are too blinded by what they have been told for most of their lives that they do not care to truly look at the bigger picture in an unbiased way (and this does not only apply to religion).

And I'd also just like to point out that I'm not judgmental in any way by what anyone decides to believe in. Do whatever you want, I don't care... its when these people try to force their beliefs (or an opinion...) on someone where I draw the line. Of course I'm not saying anyone here is doing that, merely pointing out my general stance on this matter.
Super Aurora wrote:In fact good and evil is a subjective idea that we human percheive to be.
This is the truest statement in this entire thread. I wish more people could understand this. In my honest opinion, a belief in a certain religion is almost irrelevant in relation to this topic. Develop your own, unbiased beliefs about the world in general.. then observe religions with an open mind if you so desire, and go from there. I advise to develop your own beliefs firstly because I think its most important (especially to not get mixed up in the "these things are good, these are evil" approach).. understand yourself and your stances/beliefs on the world and observe everything subjectively.
Disney's Divinity wrote:Personally, I think there would be the same amount of pain and misery in the world whether or not religion exists. People will always be cruel and selfish. Religion's just a common excuse.
Meh, I just can't agree with you there. There are too many examples where religion has been the primary cause of much violence and death.. I agree there would obviously still be cruelty in the world regardless of religion's existence, but to say the amount of pain would be equal if religion hadn't existed is hard to agree with. Although I'd agree that religion is a common excuse for a lot of things.
Image
"Good and bad are labels created by people. Nature doesn't have such concepts."
St.GeorgeMickeyMouseFlynn
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:24 pm
Location: Helping Mickey fight the Disney Villains in Fantasmic

Post by St.GeorgeMickeyMouseFlynn »

Seeing as religion is responsible for the Crusades, 9/11, a billion wars, and numerous cases of prejudice and discrimination against minorities throughout history...I think that if religion was non-existent, there’d be a lot less pain and misery.[/quote]

A billion wars, exaggerating a little aren't we?. Yet, religion also provides charities, relief services, mission stations, and more. Makes up for the wars.
User avatar
Scarred4life
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1410
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:18 pm

Post by Scarred4life »

St.GeorgeMickeyMouseFlynn wrote:Yet, religion also provides charities, relief services, mission stations, and more. Makes up for the wars.
Not really, since all of those things can exist without religion.
St.GeorgeMickeyMouseFlynn
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:24 pm
Location: Helping Mickey fight the Disney Villains in Fantasmic

Post by St.GeorgeMickeyMouseFlynn »

Scarred4life wrote:
St.GeorgeMickeyMouseFlynn wrote:Yet, religion also provides charities, relief services, mission stations, and more. Makes up for the wars.
Not really, since all of those things can exist without religion.
And wars can exist without religion existing.
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

St.GeorgeMickeyMouseFlynn wrote:A billion wars, exaggerating a little aren't we?. Yet, religion also provides charities, relief services, mission stations, and more. Makes up for the wars.
Well, obviously. But there's still something like a couple of hundred wars caused by religion: the Thirty Years' War, the French Wars of Religion, the Crusades, the Second Sudanese Civil War, the Lebanese Civil War, the Ethiopian-Adal War, the Buddhist Uprising of 1966, the Dungan Revolt, the Panthay Rebellion, various Nigerian conflicts, the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, various Irish conflicts, the Spanish Inquisition, the War on Terror...I could go on and on (with the help of a bit of research, of course. :P).

And as Scarred4Life correctly stated, the good things religion provides can be provided for outside of religion. Furthermore, a couple of charities cannot 'make up for' countless wars in which thousands, sometimes even millions of innocent civilians were killed. :headshake:
Post Reply