Captain Fashion

But here is why I totally respect you. You are not trying to convince me your G-d is the right one.

I don't think you are trying to get your version of what G-d wants ingrained into my day to day life. Which I thank you for.

I think we believe the same thing. Believe what works for you. Leave eveyone else alone. And don't let things like your pro-life/pro-choice stance direct your law making.

The challenge is seperating the two....

[TROLL]I am 110% certain that my position on this whole 'god' issue is correct because 'god' (the supernatural being that doesn't exist), told me that my way of thinking is the light of the world and will bring peace to everyone.[/TROLL]

It is my perception that religion has added to the apathy of people. For too long have people relied on 'god' to take care of their problems of which they could fully take care of themselves. And do you know why prayer works (in cases of getting something you want)? Prayer helps focus your mind and allows yourself to formulate a plan. There is no 'god' working in your favor, your prayers help in deciding which route you should take to get what you want. In the end, all the credit ends up going to 'god,' but technically it was you just focusing on and putting into concise thought of what it is that you desire.

The best thing about science, beyond its search for empirical truth and greater understanding of the universe, is the fact that science is not biased, racist, sexists, etc. Science relies on ideas, testing of ideas, verifying of ideas, re-verifying of ideas, and so on. Science holds everything in equilibrium. When was the last time you heard a classical physicist murder a quantum physicist because the classical guy does not agree with the world being based on probability?

Although science may not give you all the answers to the universe, it can give you a better understanding. And have hope! The nature of the human mind is that it thirsts for knowledge, and I have no doubt that questions you want answered eventually will be by science. And although science does get things wrong, it is always correcting itself and eventually, all roads lead to truth from reason and logic, not from faith.

I just wanted to point out that I used to pray to God, and now, I pray to Joe Pesci. And it works out at the same 50% success rate. Sometimes I get what I want, sometimes I don't.

And, there are some things that Joe Pesci has helped me with that God has been a little negligent with. For years, I asked God to do something about my neighbor with the noisy f'n dog... Joe Pesci straighted that c***sucker out with just one visit!

/Carlin FTW

hjorg: But we're not playthings. We are actors, or agents, in God's creation.

Let's assume, for philosophically comfortable reasons, that God wants the universe to be better than it is. For example, God wants less suffering, not more suffering. Then, every time we act in a way that makes the universe better, in a way that reduces suffering, we are doing God's work--we are, in a very small way, the fulfillment of the promise or possibilities of the creation.

"Playthings" are helpless toys. We are not helpless toys; we are or can be or should be agents of change that make God's creation a better place that it was before. That is something that ought to cause us to hold our heads high!


Emphasis mine...
... So again do we have free will or are we here for his amusement? And if we do have free will why would an all powerful god give us that ability and then set us onto a course filled with problems.

I'm just trying to point out, that if god is an omniscient. IE the one who set it into motion and takes his hands off the wheel he's a rather malevolent deity who likes to watch pain and suffering since he knew there would be pain and suffering. The great sadist if you will.

If god is not omniscient and refuses to intervene in his creation and instead takes his hands off, he is apathetic towards his creation or has some sick twisted curiosity with it that again borders on sadism.

If he cares, evidence does not support it. If he doesn't care, evidence supports it and hey that's all well and cool but I really don't feel like worshiping either.

AtomicDragon
And just to be clear I was NOT asking for a pie or new car, or something silly.

I asked to get help in dealing with a way I was feeling. With how to handle what happened in my life. I felt no guidance.

If the guidance is soo hard to find, then it can seem like I am being 'teased'.

Why would G-d want to make it hard for me to find Him?

mp3sum
You can be happy in your faith, it's your judgement of other faiths that I find logically unsound. She is inclined toward having everyone fall under the same moral compass as herself.

I think that's a pretty bold assumption to make about me. So far, the only people I have said that I wish had different beliefs are white supremacists. I think the majority of people would deal with them with much less respect than I've shown. I still find it humerous that you're trying to label me as intolerant of other's beliefs.

Captain Fashion
I think I chose my words poorly.

What I mean is that pretty much everyone has some kind of opinion on what happens to us after we die. Honestly, have you ever met anyone who has no opinion whatsoever?

Yes. The world is a big place, and the mind has an infinite number of configurations.

This opinion is the 'guess' I was referring to. Some people obviously have stronger opinions than others, but on some level, I think pretty much everyone at some point thinks about what what becomes of them after they die, and has some kind of 'guess' regarding what it is.

That's a very close minded opinion man. This is not a jab, just a suggestion that you stop assuming what's true across the board for every human psyche. I would imagine you have never tried any hard psychedelic drugs, but it may assist you in figuring this out. The mind is largely pliable, and the concieved limits of your thought barely put a dent in the realm of the possible.


AtomicDragon
In short, I took a hypothesis, tested it, and got a reult. I continue to test my hypothesis regularily, and keep getting the same answer - that God exists and is looking out for me.

Wow. I do not believe I can argue with that logic.


johne3819
Captain Fashion

I think we believe the same thing. Believe what works for you. Leave eveyone else alone. And don't let things like your pro-life/pro-choice stance direct your law making.

The challenge is seperating the two....

Do you see why this will not be possible? Religion is central to a person's life. Very strong morals and beliefs stem from it and manifest in that person's actions. What happens when you ask a religious person to act as a government official? You can not just tell someone to remove a huge part of their mental make up when making a decision that will affect others, especially when it's a moral call. So, do you suggest that we only elect non-religious people to office?

2006-07-25 03:58:30 PM Ed Grubermann

"No. It's quite logical. If every religion is the invention of man, then so is every god."

Every idea of god is the invention of man. This is trivially true. That does not rule out the possibility that one of these ideas happens to be correct, or that god exists in a form that no human being has guessed.

"The religious person has to invent layers of "mystery" and "unfathomness of God" to deal with the discrepancies (sp?) between what their faith tells them should have happened and what did."

Not always. In many cases, the faith of the religious person makes no predictions about how any earthly events should unfold.

johne3819: But here is why I totally respect you. You are not trying to convince me your G-d is the right one.

I don't think you are trying to get your version of what G-d wants ingrained into my day to day life. Which I thank you for.

I think we believe the same thing. Believe what works for you. Leave eveyone else alone. And don't let things like your pro-life/pro-choice stance direct your law making.

The challenge is seperating the two....

Thanks man. I don't think I've ever had anyone respect me before. Feels kinda weird....

I am right there with you on the "believe what you want as long as it doesn't harm or interefere with anyone else believing what they want" but I do understand how it's easier said than done.

Honestly, I think it's bizarre to believe in a religion where your faith can be so easily shattered, but at the same time I understand that most other people's brains aren't wired the same as mine, and they haven't has as many traumatic head injuries as I have, so I'm happy to support anyone who wants to explore their faith, as long as they don't oppress others.

I wrote: superluminal girl (that is who it was, right?) was not using the "deviation from the norm" definition of tolerance in her discussion; she was quite obviously using the "inclination toward freedom of choice in behavior" definition.

mp3sum responded: Still fits man, as I stated earlier. If she had an inclination toward freedom of choice in behaviour (be sure to include both mental and physical behaviour, as action stems from thought), then she wouldn't advocate trying to change people's minds through the act of persuasion, physical or otherwise. She is inclined toward having everyone fall under the same moral compass as herself.

I think you're creating an impossibly restrictive idea of tolerance, one that does not make sense in practice or common parlance.

For example, I tolerate my conservative friends' politics. They are my friends, I enjoy their company, I even enjoy talking politics with them. That hardly implies that my tolerance of their politics estops me from attempting to convince them that they are wrong.

mp3sum I'm not saying any particular world religion is correct, in fact I'd be inclined to agree with you that they all smell strongly of human invention. However, stating there is no God is still just as inventive as saying there is one.

I agree with you here. It takes a lot of faith in the world to say "there is no God, and there cannot be a God." For most of my life I was agnostic. It's an honest admission that you are incapable at present of committing to a particular worldviewd due to lack of evidence.

mp3sum

You are right, people are made up (at least partly) of these factors.

I'm sorry I don't have an answer. I just hope people are as tolerant as possible.

Any real ideas? Anyone?

/BTW I am atheist. Not that it matters.

PC LOAD LETTER:
Just stick to the NT, at least you own that part.

Hey, I don't want that crap. You take it!

IdBeCrazyIf:

I reckon you're looking for this:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" (Epicurus)

I'm really not sure how I would go about arguing with it. I guess one could wonder what would be the point, really, of just having everyone live in a big magic happy land where nothing bad ever happen.

Or, if you believe that we're going to the big magic happy land eventually anyway, perhaps a little suffering beforehand gives the context needed to enjoy it. I'm not really sure.

Ed Grubermann
No. It's quite logical. If every religion is the invention of man, then so is every god. What proof is there of any god(s)? The texts of the religions that beleive in them and the experiences of people whose world view is filtered through those beleifs.

To a religious person anything amazing is a miracle (6 Day War, anyone?). To a non-religious person the cause of an amazing event is determined by the particulars of the event in question. The non-religious person can study the event, develope hypothosis about their observations and test against their hypothosis to see if they play out or fail. He/she can use imperical evidense to backup or destroy their ideas and retool their ideas accordingly. The religious person has to invent layers of "mystery" and "unfathomness of God" to deal with the discrepancies (sp?) between what their faith tells them should have happened and what did.

Ok, let me state it like this. I like to speak in the realm of what we know and don't know when discussing spiritual truth. Is it logical to ASSUME there is no God, as no evidence has been presented thus far? Yes. Is it logical to say God, without a doubt, does not exist? No. There is no proof either way, therefor an absolute statement can not be made.


superluminal girl

mp3sum
You can be happy in your faith, it's your judgement of other faiths that I find logically unsound. She is inclined toward having everyone fall under the same moral compass as herself.

I think that's a pretty bold assumption to make about me. So far, the only people I have said that I wish had different beliefs are white supremacists. I think the majority of people would deal with them with much less respect than I've shown. I still find it humerous that you're trying to label me as intolerant of other's beliefs.

Why does it matter what the majority does? Do you rate yourself on how your actions compare to most of society? From what you have stated, we've established that you are indeed intolerant of white supremacist beliefs. You try to make a point about it being the only group mentioned thus far. So, how many groups must you not tolerate before this becomes an issue for you? Should I list a few more people whose beliefs you'd most likely want to eradicate? Somehow, I don't think that's necessary.

muninsfire

Not quite. I know that Jim is entirely capable of trashing my house, and that he's likely to do it--but he could always have a change of heart, and exercise his free will to do good.

If Jim was going to have a change of heart, you would know that ahead of time, since you're God. He may have free will, but you already know with 100% certainty what he will decide to do. There is no reason for you to give him the chance to do anything, because you already know the outcome. What Jim is likely to do need not ever enter your mind since you know what he actually will do.

mp3sum: Do you see why this will not be possible? Religion is central to a person's life. Very strong morals and beliefs stem from it and manifest in that person's actions. What happens when you ask a religious person to act as a government official? You can not just tell someone to remove a huge part of their mental make up when making a decision that will affect others, especially when it's a moral call. So, do you suggest that we only elect non-religious people to office?

This is a pretty ballsy assumption to make that for one to be morally upstanding you must have roots in religion. I know many non-religious people who are just as/even more morally upstanding to those with ties to religion. In some cases, religiously moral people are hindered in moral dilemmas (like Stem cell research) to make the choice that would have the greatest positive impact for their community.

I used to be a very devout Catholic and went every Sunday to church for 20 years. One day at some retreat, I asked myself the question that if I woke up tomorrow and found out all religions are just shams and their 'beliefs' are false, would my morality collapse. To this I answered no, because my morals are separate from the things I had 'faith' in. This led me to asking more questions and getting more answers as well as more questions.

Respect for your fellow man, upholding honor and integrity, etc. - things of this nature are guiding principles given to us by a 'god,' but rather they come from community and civilization trying to maintain a balance that will keep the majority of its citizens happy and healthy. All faiths carry similar ways of how to conduct society, and that's because of the universality of respect for each other, not because it was a mandate from the heavens.

mp3sum

Damn. I've been called many things in my time, but I think this is the first time I've been called close minded.

Based on my own experience, I've never met anyone who has no opinion whatsoever regarding what happens to us after we die. I never said it was impossible to not have an opinion.

I believe that anything is possible, but some things are more likely than others.


johne3819

I've actually gotten pretty much everything I've ever prayed for, altough not always in the way I expected.

2006-07-25 04:06:05 PM hjorg

"I think you're creating an impossibly restrictive idea of tolerance, one that does not make sense in practice or common parlance.

For example, I tolerate my conservative friends' politics. They are my friends, I enjoy their company, I even enjoy talking politics with them. That hardly implies that my tolerance of their politics estops me from attempting to convince them that they are wrong."

Seconded. From what I'm gathering here, Superluminal Girl holds certain beliefs, and it follows that she thinks contradictory beliefs are wrong. That's logical consistency, not intolerance.

hjorg
I think you're creating an impossibly restrictive idea of tolerance, one that does not make sense in practice or common parlance.

Yes, I am speaking at a very basic level. If you want to bring societal norms and accepted valued into it, then the analyzation tree becomes infinite. I certainly would not label my position impossibly restrictive however, just outside your realm of consideration.


AtomicDragon
I agree with you here.

Get the fark out of here. I'll tell you when you can agree with me! ;)


johne3819
mp3sum

You are right, people are made up (at least partly) of these factors.

I'm always right. It ain't easy bein me you know :(


/tries a new larger ego on for size
//Encourages religious folk to read this thread in a non-defensive manner. Some good stuff here

Something is wrong. Were debating religion and everyone is treating eachother civily!

BURN IN HELL YOU HEATHEN UNBELIEVERS! MY GOD WILL HAVE VENGEANCE COME JUDGEMENT DAY! HAHAHAHA!

johne3819: If the guidance is soo hard to find, then it can seem like I am being 'teased'.

Why would G-d want to make it hard for me to find Him?

I don't know the answer to that. Some people fall easily into religion, others not so much. It may be that some of us are just not gifted in the ability to develop faith and need to work harder to develop that skill.

I'd like to see a show of (virtual) hands from all the people participating in this thread whose beliefs/opinions have been changed by this discussion.

/not raising my hand

mp3sum

Out of curiousity:

Joe believes that it tying live kittens to trees and throwing darts at them is not morally acceptable. Bob believes that it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, and that in fact we as human beings have a moral obligation to throw darts at live kittens.

Are there any good arguments to support the idea that Joe is correct and Bod is wrong? Should we make any attempts to change Bob's mind?

IdBeCrazyIf: ... So again do we have free will or are we here for his amusement? And if we do have free will why would an all powerful god give us that ability and then set us onto a course filled with problems.

Well, I tried to address that as best I could in my post timestamped 2006-07-25 03:12:19 PM. I'm not sure I can do any better, or that there would be any benefit in repeating the same points again.

But, let me throw out one more thing on the subject of free will. Perhaps God knows that good can only truly come, when evil is also a possibility. Perhaps God was faced with two alternatives--nothingness, or a universe in which great good is possible, and great evil is also possible.

Perhaps God is "all powerful" (I'm not so sure...), but realizes that creating a "perfect" universe would be akin to nothingness (a "perfect" universe being indistinguishable from God). Maybe God did not want to create perfection, but rather wanted to create goodness, and realizes that the possibility of goodness necessarily carries with it the possibility of evilness as well.

2006-07-25 04:23:22 PM IsaacM

"I'd like to see a show of (virtual) hands from all the people participating in this thread whose beliefs/opinions have been changed by this discussion."

A couple weeks ago, I realized in one of these threads that I was mistaken on a fine point of terminology, and that technically I was a negative atheist, rather than an agnostic. Although I may still be an agnostic. The two are not mutually exclusive.

johne3819: Any real ideas? Anyone?

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Take the, "government shall enact no laws establishing one particular religion" and combine it with "everyone is free to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't hurt or hinder anyone else."

Take abortion. First of all, I'd suggest that you legally define a foetus as an individual person only when it has reached a point of being able to survive outside the womb. Before that, it's just a part of the mother.

Yes I know that a LOT of people won't agree with me on this one, but for the sake of argument let's say that they do.

Under these circumstances, abortion is legal, but only within a very specific, legally defined timeframe.

Gay marrige? Legal, because it doesn't hurt anyone. Flag burning? Legal. "Under God" in the pledge? Illegal because it establishes religion.

I dunno, it seems pretty simple to me. But like I said before, I realise not everyone thinks the same way I do.

sensai [TotalFark]
mp3sum: Do you see why this will not be possible? Religion is central to a person's life. Very strong morals and beliefs stem from it and manifest in that person's actions. What happens when you ask a religious person to act as a government official? You can not just tell someone to remove a huge part of their mental make up when making a decision that will affect others, especially when it's a moral call. So, do you suggest that we only elect non-religious people to office?

This is a pretty ballsy assumption to make that for one to be morally upstanding you must have roots in religion.

Heh I think you missed my point man. All I am saying is if you are religious, and have morals pertaining to that religion, than your actions will no doubt stem from those morals as they are a significant part of who you are.


Captain Fashion
mp3sum

Damn. I've been called many things in my time, but I think this is the first time I've been called close minded.

Based on my own experience, I've never met anyone who has no opinion whatsoever regarding what happens to us after we die. I never said it was impossible to not have an opinion.

I believe that anything is possible, but some things are more likely than others.

Ehehe sorry man, as I said before, it's not meant as an insult, simply an observation of your mental state. I realize you have never met anyone who has no opinion on the subject, and there are many people I have yet to meet who share widely varying outlooks on life. The point is, just because I haven't seen a certain mental configuration first hand doesn't mean I can dismiss it as not existing. It looks like you are approaching the right conclusion, however I would drop the "likely" as well, since it only narrows your perception.

IsaacM I'd like to see a show of (virtual) hands from all the people participating in this thread whose beliefs/opinions have been changed by this discussion.

While changing someones beliefs is challenging, especially over something like FARK, the discussion does help us all to understand our own point of view, and why we hold it. Some of us may make very small adjustments to our personal beliefs as we are forced to question and defend them. And even if nobodys opinion changes immediately, it may be that the seeds of faith are planted to sprout at a later time.

mp3sum
What exactly would I have to do to be tolerant of a white supremacist?

I already said that I love and respect them as human beings, even though I think that their hatred of other human beings is abhorant. I would not kill them if I had the chance, I would only talk with them to try to find out why they hold their belief and to explain to them why I disagree. What exactly is intolerant about that, in your opinion? What behavior of mine would you change to make it more tolerant?

2006-07-25 04:30:06 PM Ed Grubermann

"Sure, it's logical to state catagorically that there is no God based on the complete lack of imperical evidense and the historical fact that all faiths are myths."

No. You are assuming that if there was a God, it would necassarily be possible that there might be imperical evidence of this God. It is not logical to make a positive claim about a matter to which the concept of imperical evidence may not be applicable.

Further, what is this "historical fact that all faiths are myths"? All you can really say about this is that sometimes a religion reaches the point where nobody follows in it anymore, and at this point we call it a myth. I don't think this gets you anywhere. The fact that nobody believes in the greek gods any longer is not proof that zeus does not exist.

capnpaco IdBeCrazyIf:

I reckon you're looking for this:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" (Epicurus)

I'm really not sure how I would go about arguing with it. I guess one could wonder what would be the point, really, of just having everyone live in a big magic happy land where nothing bad ever happen.

Or, if you believe that we're going to the big magic happy land eventually anyway, perhaps a little suffering beforehand gives the context needed to enjoy it. I'm not really sure.

Well, I think your list from Epicurus might fail in part because of problems with scale. The Hebrew Bible deals with this in some pretty profound ways (wish I could remember the verses!); for one thing, from our individual perspective, things like cancer are terrible, horrible things; needless and evil suffering. But perhaps from God's point of view--he who watches whole starsystems destroyed by supernova, simply because the laws of physics are such that the mass of star is too large and the hydrogen burns too fast to contain the reaction--maybe it isn't such a terrible, horrible thing. After all, out of supernova come all the atoms larger than carbon. As with a supernova, so on a very much smaller scale is a death from cancer; from ashes we came, and unto ashes we shall return. Maybe this only seems bad, because of our limited perspective. Maybe from God's point of view, it isn't so bad?

IsaacM

I'd like to see a show of (virtual) hands from all the people participating in this thread whose beliefs/opinions have been changed by this discussion.

/not raising my hand

You close minded bastard! Wait, my opinion didn't change either.


capnpaco
mp3sum
Out of curiousity:

Joe believes that it tying live kittens to trees and throwing darts at them is not morally acceptable. Bob believes that it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, and that in fact we as human beings have a moral obligation to throw darts at live kittens.

Are there any good arguments to support the idea that Joe is correct and Bod is wrong? Should we make any attempts to change Bob's mind?

Are there any "good" arguments? That depends significantly on how you define good. Morality is utterly relative, so to answer, I would have to consider every moral umbrella ever concieved, even those that are simply possible and have yet to be concieved, and see if any consensus arose.

To answer you simply, what happens if you ask this question to Joe, and then to Bob?


Captain Fashion
johne3819: Any real ideas? Anyone?

Take abortion. First of all, I'd suggest that you legally define a foetus as an individual person only when it has reached a point of being able to survive outside the womb. Before that, it's just a part of the mother.

Yes I know that a LOT of people won't agree with me on this one, but for the sake of argument let's say that they do.
...

I dunno, it seems pretty simple to me. But like I said before, I realise not everyone thinks the same way I do.

This is totally contradictory. It's totally simple, and yet you realize "a LOT" of people don't agree with you. Maybe you better take this outside until you understand it yourself.

/This thread has gone plaid.

Ed Grubermann:
"It might not be strictly scientifically sound, but it is logical."

So it's scientifically unsound to say there's no God, but it's still logical? How does that make since? That's...well, illogical.

I'm trying, but I still cannot see how the absense of physical evidence of the supernatural (which wouldn't make any sense because the supernatural, by definition, exists outside physicality) reneders the existence of God impossible. The fact that you argue that this is logical only serves to illustrate what a close-minded idiot you are.

"The absense of evidence is not evidence of absense"-Samuel L. Jackson (okay, maybe not the best source, but I'll take what I can get.

IsaacM: I'd like to see a show of (virtual) hands from all the people participating in this thread whose beliefs/opinions have been changed by this discussion.

My beliefs and opinions haven't changed, and if anything they've become stronger, but I definitely learn a lot from discussions like these. If nothing else it's an insight into human thought, human nature, and the human condition in general, and at the very least it's interesting and entertaining.

2006-07-25 04:39:26 PM hjorg

The point about perspective makes sense. Certainly, if you posit some afterlife where everything's happy, that seems to solve the problem too. I think a horrible death from cancer would probably be acceptable if I got to live in happy land and eat ice cream for eleventy zillion years afterwards.

The main thing I was going for with the Epicurus post was, a lot of people were bringing up the whole conundrum of the omnipotence and the evil and the free will and whatnot, and I was just saying, yeah, it's been a problem for a long time, people are aware of it, they deal with it or attempt to deal with it in different ways, and the problem (although obviously not the solution) was encapsulated very well in 4 tidy lines a couple thousand years ago.

Thanks all for such a civilized conversation(s).

Unfortunately my mind has not been changed, it has however, I feel, been opened up to more information. It helps me understand other better, and hence, treat them more along the lines that they would (I hope) want to be.

Thanks all. I must depart.

superluminal girl
mp3sum
What exactly would I have to do to be tolerant of a white supremacist?

Understand that their personal beliefs are just as arbitrary and valid as your own. In other words, don't look down upon them simple because their ideas differ from your own.

I already said that I love and respect them as human beings, even though I think that their hatred of other human beings is abhorant. I would not kill them if I had the chance, I would only talk with them to try to find out why they hold their belief and to explain to them why I disagree. What exactly is intolerant about that, in your opinion? What behavior of mine would you change to make it more tolerant?

Why would you need to talk to them and explain why you disagree? Because you want to change their beliefs. We've been over this several times, and it's like you want me to answer it in different ways to somehow accentuate the point. Your goal is to change their minds, ie. to eliminate those who think differently than you. And as I've said before, your continuous use of physical violence as some sort of example in no way applies here. The method by which you attempt to change their minds is irrelevant, the fact that you are trying to do so is the crux of this discussion. There is no level of tolerance to be applied here, no more or less tolerant. You are simply intolerant.

hjorg: Perhaps God is "all powerful" (I'm not so sure...), but realizes that creating a "perfect" universe would be akin to nothingness (a "perfect" universe being indistinguishable from God). Maybe God did not want to create perfection, but rather wanted to create goodness, and realizes that the possibility of goodness necessarily carries with it the possibility of evilness as well.

So he loves us but sorry timmy... you gotta die.

Again.. to know this before hand screams sadist.

mp3sum: This is totally contradictory. It's totally simple, and yet you realize "a LOT" of people don't agree with you. Maybe you better take this outside until you understand it yourself.

Seems simple enough to me. I'm saying that if we had a legal definition stating, "a foetus is an individual human at week x" we could very easily say that abortion is legal before week x but not after week x.

My statement was that I realise it could be difficult to get everyone to agree to this, but if we could, abortion would no longer be a moral or religious issue, but simply a legal one.

hjorg: Well, I think your list from Epicurus might fail in part because of problems with scale. The Hebrew Bible deals with this in some pretty profound ways (wish I could remember the verses!); for one thing, from our individual perspective, things like cancer are terrible, horrible things; needless and evil suffering. But perhaps from God's point of view--he who watches whole starsystems destroyed by supernova, simply because the laws of physics are such that the mass of star is too large and the hydrogen burns too fast to contain the reaction--maybe it isn't such a terrible, horrible thing. After all, out of supernova come all the atoms larger than carbon. As with a supernova, so on a very much smaller scale is a death from cancer; from ashes we came, and unto ashes we shall return. Maybe this only seems bad, because of our limited perspective. Maybe from God's point of view, it isn't so bad?

So god is apathetic towards his creations yet we are required to worship him without fault 24/7 lest we fail to get the pie in the sky reward?

No thanks.

2006-07-25 04:40:42 PM mp3sum
IsaacM
"I'd like to see a show of (virtual) hands from all the people participating in this thread whose beliefs/opinions have been changed by this discussion.

/not raising my hand"

"You close minded bastard! Wait, my opinion didn't change either."

What I said sounded bad, I know, but it was pretty much a tongue in cheek way of showing that arguments over issues of faith, or most anything else for that matter, are usually, in the end, fruitless. They'll make you think, certainly, and that is a benefit, but 180 turns in beliefs and opinions as a result of internet discussions are very rare, so it's no use getting worked up over them.

capnpaco: I think a horrible death from cancer would probably be acceptable if I got to live in happy land and eat ice cream for eleventy zillion years afterwards.

Okay okay.... if you make it mint chocolat chip I might change my mind.