Epicurus Quote

[Eris]

“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?”

[Rupert]

Would monotheism have been influential in Epicurus' culture?

[Eris]

Probably not. Probably referencing a God leader such as Zeus, Jupiter,
or Godzilla.

[Rupert]

On Apr 8, 9:23 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Probably not. Probably referencing a God leader such as Zeus, Jupiter,
> or Godzilla.
>

Well, it would be interesting to know. Because I don't think Zeus was
generally regarded as especially benevolent.

[Rolf Schuler]

< Would monotheism have been influential in Epicurus' culture?>

Keeping Epicurus' philosophy in mind, I'd say NO.

Rolf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2011/4/8 Eris <vit...@gmail.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[love&peace]

God's inflexible stand in maintaining His laws in creation
continue to puzzle many. Such things as evil and good are necessary
components of creation. One identify the other. Choice is then used to
determine one's preference for any of them. God's will to prevent evil
is inherent in man's aversion to that which is not good. To blame God
for creating such principles is to declare that we lack the capacity
and will-power to resist that which is evil. Many have successfully
lived evil-free lives.

[TLC]

God's inflexible stand in maintaining His invisability and doing
nothing in creation
continue to puzzle many as to why some still believe in a Sky Fairy!

[love&peace]

On Apr 8, 11:47 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  God's inflexible stand in maintaining His invisability and doing
> nothing in creation
> continue to puzzle many as to why some still believe in a Sky Fairy!

He remains 'invincible' only to those who would not believe that He
exists.

[flint]

the same old dialogue.. why could you just point out from the original
post where it went wrong instead of going away from the topic?

[LL]

LL:If god wanted man to be free of bad acts he would have created us
that way. (I don't use the word evil. It means nothing.) Instead he
created man with a capacity to commit bad acts and used it as a test--
a test that was and is unnecessary. This only shows that the whole
philosophy of a powerful god is completely contradictory.

You can't know whether anyone leads a life completely free of bad
acts. You can only go by what you see. You have no idea what is under
the surface. Humans have the ability to do bad acts. If you believe in
a creator god you have to believe he created man with that ability, so
he's 100% responsible for it, in my opinion. You can't rationally
argue that your god is all powerful but that he doesn't use that power
in order to test man's capacity for bad acts--which he created in the
first place-- and also argue that he is thereby not responsible for
the results.

************************

*****************

[love&peace]

On Apr 8, 6:17 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 3:11 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 3:55 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > “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?”
>
> >     God's inflexible stand in maintaining His laws in creation
> > continue to puzzle many. Such things as evil and good are necessary
> > components of creation. One identify the other. Choice is then used to
> > determine one's preference for any of them. God's will to prevent evil
> > is inherent in man's aversion to that which is not good. To blame God
> > for creating such principles is to declare that we lack the capacity
> > and will-power to resist that which is evil. Many have successfully
> > lived evil-free lives.
>
> LL:If god wanted man to be free of bad acts he would have created us
> that way. (I don't use the word evil. It means nothing.) Instead he
> created man with a capacity to commit bad acts and used it as a test--
> a test that was and is unnecessary. This only shows that the whole
> philosophy of a powerful god is completely contradictory.

There is nothing wrong with having the capacity for both good and bad.
Between the two, there is also the capacity to choose. Life can be
exciting if man makes the right choices. God knows the tendencies in
man, and He has made laws that ensure we do not experience joy if we
chose the bad. God wants us to chart our course in life in order for
us to taste real joy that comes from personal victory.To have made
everything so simple would have amounted to removing that uniqueness
in man.

> You can't know whether anyone leads a life completely free of bad
> acts. You can only go by what you see. You have no idea what is under
> the surface. Humans have the ability to do bad acts. If you believe in
> a creator god you have to believe he created man with that ability, so
> he's 100% responsible for it, in my opinion. You can't rationally
> argue that your god is all powerful but that he doesn't use that power
> in order to test man's capacity for bad acts--which he created in the
> first place-- and also argue that he is thereby not responsible for
> the results.

Certainly, there are men and women who, in spite of seeming
difficulties in life, have lived in ways that can be described as
good. God could be responsible for man's ills if He had not given to
man the ability to decide for himself. God's decisions are faultless,
if we give ourselves to understanding Him.

> ************************
>
> *****************

[Steve in Virginia]

I think Plutarch mentions Godzilla... :)


Steve

[Steve in Virginia]

Blaming the victims is one of the typical (and many) rhetorical
canards theists employ to try and explain away the contradictions and
inconsistencies of the bible. According to the Christian mythos, god
is the creator of all things. In that capacity he is responsible for
the good and evil in the world. Thus, if there is evil in the world it
is of god's doing. He is the architect of the universe and what it
contains is the direct results of his actions.

Obviously, it always was god's intent to introduce evil into his
creation, or there wouldn't have been a talking snake, or Beelzebub
and the like. To insist it's humankind's fault employs the same
twisted logic as claiming a woman is responsible for being raped
because she was attractive and wearing a pretty dress.

Like I've said in the past, the architect designs inherent flaws into
his design of the house, it isn't the fault of the occupants that it
collapses and kills them. I mean, unless you believe in the bible.

Cheers,

Steve

[love&peace]

A declaration that we aren't capable of a permanently sustainable
good: There is no faulty design in this case, but, rather, a refusal
to do that which must keep the house standing.

[Eris]

Name a system that would not work if everyone cooperated?

[Timbo]

On Apr 10, 2:18 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Name a system that would not work if everyone cooperated?

Everyone screwing 14 virgins. Q=======,=====<

[Eris]

[Eris]

Seriously, isn't Epicurus a cooking website.

On Apr 10, 7:12 pm, Timbo <thcus...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

[love&peace]

On Apr 10, 7:18 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Name a system that would not work if everyone cooperated?

Man has not fully cooperated; you are right.

[Timbo]

On Apr 11, 4:17 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 7:18 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Name a system that would not work if everyone cooperated?
>
> Man has not fully cooperated; you are right.

I second that.
Cooperate and individualism seem to be adversaries.

[Steve in Virginia]

But according to the Christian propaganda, humankind is flawed because
Eve eat some magic fruit she wasn't supposed to eat. But an omniscient
god would have known that. So why blame countless generations for the
transgression of those two, when god was already aware what was going
to happen even before he started the creation?

Oh, wait...because it provides the irrational justification to paint
the entire human race as sinful. In turn that requires the uneducated
and unknowing masses to turn to the con men and false promises of
religion to obtain an unnecessary salvation for imaginary sins, that
occurred in a place that exist only in the imagination.

Cheers,

Steve

On Apr 10, 8:56 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Eris]

Which gave the homosexual goat herders, who concocted this scheme,
control over an adversarial, heterosexual majority. No more death if
caught, veneration instead.

[thea]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Steve in Virginia <chandl...@gmail.com> wrote:

But according to the Christian propaganda, humankind is flawed because
Eve eat some magic fruit she wasn't supposed to eat. But an omniscient
god would have known that.  So why blame countless generations for the
transgression of those two, when god was already aware what was going
to happen even before he started the creation?

Oh, wait...because it provides the irrational justification to paint
the entire human race as sinful.  In turn that requires the uneducated
and unknowing masses to turn to the con men and false promises of
religion to obtain an unnecessary salvation  for imaginary sins, that
occurred in a place that exist only in the imagination.

Cheers,

Steve

Except it was not the *fruit* that caused the problem -- it was the
disobedience to a command of God.
I always wondered what would have happened if Adam, who brought
sin into the world with his disobedience, had not eaten what the
woman offered to him.
After all, it was not the woman's fault - she got her information second
hand from Adam.
And, another question, did they realize they were naked when the
woman ate, or did they only realize this after Adam ate.
Disobedience to God's commands is deadly - and we know this.
However, we also know that God made an immediate sacrifice
to save Adam and Eve with coats of skin.
God loves us.
thea
 

[Timbo]

On Apr 13, 7:55 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Steve in Virginia

> <chandler2...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> > But according to the Christian propaganda, humankind is flawed because
> > Eve eat some magic fruit she wasn't supposed to eat. But an omniscient
> > god would have known that.  So why blame countless generations for the
> > transgression of those two, when god was already aware what was going
> > to happen even before he started the creation?
>
> > Oh, wait...because it provides the irrational justification to paint
> > the entire human race as sinful.  In turn that requires the uneducated
> > and unknowing masses to turn to the con men and false promises of
> > religion to obtain an unnecessary salvation  for imaginary sins, that
> > occurred in a place that exist only in the imagination.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Steve
>
> Except it was not the *fruit* that caused the problem -- it was the
> disobedience to a command of God.
> I always wondered what would have happened if Adam, who brought
> sin into the world with his disobedience, had not eaten what the
> woman offered to him.
> After all, it was not the woman's fault - she got her information second
> hand from Adam.

Eve enticed Adam with information she got second hand from Adam?

Look, apples do not typically thrive in hot dry climates but apricots
due. In historic linguistic study the apricot was called an apple in
that region. So, I would assume that Adam was metaphorically enticed
by the apricots on Eve's breasts. Gad told Adam to go bludgeon a goat
and cover that shit up. Adam said naw, I like them apricots, they's a
gift from Gode :)

[thea]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Timbo <thcu...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Apr 13, 7:55 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Steve in Virginia

> <chandler2...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> > But according to the Christian propaganda, humankind is flawed because
> > Eve eat some magic fruit she wasn't supposed to eat. But an omniscient
> > god would have known that.  So why blame countless generations for the
> > transgression of those two, when god was already aware what was going
> > to happen even before he started the creation?
>
> > Oh, wait...because it provides the irrational justification to paint
> > the entire human race as sinful.  In turn that requires the uneducated
> > and unknowing masses to turn to the con men and false promises of
> > religion to obtain an unnecessary salvation  for imaginary sins, that
> > occurred in a place that exist only in the imagination.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Steve
>
> Except it was not the *fruit* that caused the problem -- it was the
> disobedience to a command of God.
> I always wondered what would have happened if Adam, who brought
> sin into the world with his disobedience, had not eaten what the
> woman offered to him.
> After all, it was not the woman's fault - she got her information second
> hand from Adam.

Eve enticed Adam with information she got second hand from Adam?

If you take a look at Genesis and write down when things happen, you
will note that Adam was told not to eat before the woman was made.
In other words, Adam was told something by God, but the woman
was not even in the equation when it happened.
So the woman received the information *second hand.*
That is why Adam is held responsible, but the woman is said to have
been fooled.
Adam is the one responsible for all our ills.  Sorry Guys, but the
woman was still Adam's rib.
 

[Jeff W]

On 4/13/2011 6:55 AM, thea wrote:

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Steve in Virginia <chandl...@gmail.com> wrote:

But according to the Christian propaganda, humankind is flawed because
Eve eat some magic fruit she wasn't supposed to eat. But an omniscient
god would have known that.  So why blame countless generations for the
transgression of those two, when god was already aware what was going
to happen even before he started the creation?

Oh, wait...because it provides the irrational justification to paint
the entire human race as sinful.  In turn that requires the uneducated
and unknowing masses to turn to the con men and false promises of
religion to obtain an unnecessary salvation  for imaginary sins, that
occurred in a place that exist only in the imagination.

Cheers,

Steve

Except it was not the *fruit* that caused the problem -- it was the
disobedience to a command of God.

Jeff - And that was accomplished BEFORE the fruit was eaten,
 due to a sinful nature being endowed to you by your creator.

I always wondered what would have happened if Adam, who brought
sin into the world with his disobedience, had not eaten what the
woman offered to him.
After all, it was not the woman's fault - she got her information second
hand from Adam.

Jeff - Then no man after 100 A.D. would be guilty of sin, since ALL of them
 would have received info about Jesus, and the requirements for saving them,
 second hand.

And, another question, did they realize they were naked when the
woman ate, or did they only realize this after Adam ate.

Jeff - Why would that matter?  Is being naked evil?
They were ashamed, so it cannot have been good to be naked.
Thus your god created them with the sinful nature, AND naked,
 both of which are evil.  Way to go Yahweh!

Disobedience to God's commands is deadly - and we know this.

Jeff - How? You are not dead, and you have not TALKED to anyone that is.
HOW do you know this?

However, we also know that God made an immediate sacrifice
to save Adam and Eve with coats of skin.
God loves us.
thea

Jeff - How again do you know this? You were not there when the earth was formed,
 and you have not TALKED to anyone that was.  You are taking the word of another
 MAN when reading a holy BOOK.

-- 
JEFF

[thea]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jeff W <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/13/2011 6:55 AM, thea wrote:

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Steve in Virginia <chandl...@gmail.com> wrote:

But according to the Christian propaganda, humankind is flawed because
Eve eat some magic fruit she wasn't supposed to eat. But an omniscient
god would have known that.  So why blame countless generations for the
transgression of those two, when god was already aware what was going
to happen even before he started the creation?

Oh, wait...because it provides the irrational justification to paint
the entire human race as sinful.  In turn that requires the uneducated
and unknowing masses to turn to the con men and false promises of
religion to obtain an unnecessary salvation  for imaginary sins, that
occurred in a place that exist only in the imagination.

Cheers,

Steve

Except it was not the *fruit* that caused the problem -- it was the
disobedience to a command of God.

Jeff - And that was accomplished BEFORE the fruit was eaten,
 due to a sinful nature being endowed to you by your creator.

Adam sinned and I believe Adam was the male.  In other words, don't blame
Eve as she wasn't even told not to eat as she had not been *made* yet.

I always wondered what would have happened if Adam, who brought
sin into the world with his disobedience, had not eaten what the
woman offered to him.
After all, it was not the woman's fault - she got her information second
hand from Adam.

Jeff - Then no man after 100 A.D. would be guilty of sin, since ALL of them
 would have received info about Jesus, and the requirements for saving them,
 second hand.

Adam had a son by the name of Seth, and Seth had a son by the namof Enosh.
Enosh was the first time man began to call upon the name of the Lord.
So Adam's grandson believed in the God who made Adam.
Genesis 4:26.


 

And, another question, did they realize they were naked when the
woman ate, or did they only realize this after Adam ate.

Jeff - Why would that matter?  Is being naked evil?
They were ashamed, so it cannot have been good to be naked.
Thus your god created them with the sinful nature, AND naked,
 both of which are evil.  Way to go Yahweh!

I think they only realized their sin after Adam ate -- because it is Adam's
fault we are in the shape we are in today.


 

Disobedience to God's commands is deadly - and we know this.

Jeff - How? You are not dead, and you have not TALKED to anyone that is.
HOW do you know this?

All men have to die the first death.  You also will die one day and after
that the judgement.
But all men do not have to die the second death which is being separated
from *light* for eternity.

 

However, we also know that God made an immediate sacrifice
to save Adam and Eve with coats of skin.
God loves us.
thea

Jeff - How again do you know this? You were not there when the earth was formed,
 and you have not TALKED to anyone that was.  You are taking the word of another
 MAN when reading a holy BOOK.

see above about Enosh.


 

--

[PD]

On Apr 6, 9:55 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is he neither able nor willing?
> Then why call him God?”

Because God's characteristics are not forced by us calling him God.
God is whatever he is, whether we think that is worthy of being called
God or not.

[Simon Ewins]

On 4/21/2011 12:30 PM, PD wrote:
> On Apr 6, 9:55 pm, Eris<vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is he neither able nor willing?

>> Then why call him God?�

>
> Because God's characteristics are not forced by us calling him God.
> God is whatever he is,

Which is what, exactly?

> whether we think that is worthy of being called
> God or not.

--
Musique

http://www.reverbnation.com/simonewins

"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat
that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it."
[H. L. Mencken]

[PD]

On Apr 21, 11:44 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/21/2011 12:30 PM, PD wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 9:55 pm, Eris<vith...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> Is he neither able nor willing?
> >> Then why call him God?
>

> > Because God's characteristics are not forced by us calling him God.
> > God is whatever he is,
>
> Which is what, exactly?

That's what our job is to figure out. Not define.

Kind of like trying to figure out what electrons are, exactly. Not
defining them.

[Simon Ewins]

On 4/21/2011 12:50 PM, PD wrote:
> On Apr 21, 11:44 am, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/21/2011 12:30 PM, PD wrote:
>>> On Apr 6, 9:55 pm, Eris<vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Is he neither able nor willing?
>>>> Then why call him God?
>>
>>> Because God's characteristics are not forced by us calling him God.
>>> God is whatever he is,
>>
>> Which is what, exactly?
>
> That's what our job is to figure out. Not define.

I don't recall using the word 'define'.

So, what have you figured out so far? And how?

--
Musique

http://www.reverbnation.com/simonewins

"The advantage of a bad memory is that one enjoys several times the same
good things for the first time."
[Nietzsche]

[Timbo]

On Apr 21, 12:20 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jeff W <jeffw7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  On 4/13/2011 6:55 AM, thea wrote:
>

> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@gmail.com

Hi Thea,
Do you understand the stories of Adam and Eve's family as metaphor or
actual recorded events?

[Observer]

On Apr 8, 3:11 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 3:55 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > “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?”
>
>     God's inflexible stand in maintaining His laws in creation
> continue to puzzle many. Such things as evil and good are necessary
> components of creation.

Observer

A complete ,load of shit.!
Such is a argument from ignorance wherein there is a failure to
provide data establishing that any act is unconditional good and which
is consistently bad or the generic actuality of either.


Did you fail to read the listing of logistical fallaciousness which I
printed for you for you earlier or did you simply fail to understand
them and their importance in debate?

Here try to grasp the meaning of at least some so that you do not so
frequently look so utterly look stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

One identify the other. Choice is then used to
> determine one's preference for any of them.

Observer
Try between one identifies the other and facilitates a choice between
the two of them.

Will you never learn to think and type at the same time?

God's will to prevent evil
> is inherent in man's aversion to that which is not good. To blame God
> for creating such principles is to declare that we lack the capacity
> and will-power to resist that which is evil. Many have successfully

> or even think.
lived evil-free lives.

Observer

Once again your opinion of good and evil robes you of your abilities
to reason or even to think.

Had you even the most mundane grasp of social evolution you would be
able to grasp the errors of your stupidity so utterly confounded by
abject ignorance.

You might be interested to know that crime rates have decreased
thousands of fold since biblical times. The further we get away from
that psychotic filth the less violence in the world.

View this study by Steven Pinker

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Psychonomist

[Observer]

On Apr 8, 5:07 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 11:47 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  God's inflexible stand in maintaining His invisability and doing
> > nothing in creation
> > continue to puzzle many as to why some still believe in a Sky Fairy!
>
> He remains 'invincible' only to those who would not believe that He
> exists.
>
Observer
You have failed to provide any any scientifically verifiable
substantiating data, therefore, that such ever existed or committed
any act in or on this universe or even any completing reasons to
believe in such or the erroneous superstitious filth of the bible.

Yours is a case, lost completely in, and locked within the confines of
stupidity and abject ignorance.



Observer
What he ?, dimwit ,you have yet to establish the existence of or any
act of such as this ill-conceived and meaningless god thing and demand
that others follow suit by shit canning their brains to accept what is
no more than superstitious filth.

Psychonomist

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 11:11 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 3:55 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > “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?”
>
> > >     God's inflexible stand in maintaining His laws in creation
> > > continue to puzzle many. Such things as evil and good are necessary

> > > components of creation. One identify the other. Choice is then used to
> > > determine one's preference for any of them. God's will to prevent evil

> > > is inherent in man's aversion to that which is not good. To blame God
> > > for creating such principles is to declare that we lack the capacity
> > > and will-power to resist that which is evil. Many have successfully

> > > lived evil-free lives.

[PD]

On Apr 21, 4:04 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 5:07 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 8, 11:47 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >  God's inflexible stand in maintaining His invisability and doing
> > > nothing in creation
> > > continue to puzzle many as to why some still believe in a Sky Fairy!
>
> > He remains 'invincible' only to those who would not believe that He
> > exists.
>
> Observer
> You have failed to provide any any scientifically verifiable
> substantiating data, therefore,  that such ever existed or committed
> any act in or on this universe or even any completing reasons to
> believe in such or  the erroneous superstitious filth of the bible.
>
> Yours is a case, lost completely in, and locked within the confines of
> stupidity and abject ignorance.

I find your polarity fascinating.
As I understand you, anything that is not supported by scientifically
verifiable substantiating data is to be deemed the product of
stupidity and abject ignorance and superstitious filth as well.
Do I have this broad, sweeping statement correct?

[PD]

On Apr 21, 4:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 4:04 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 5:07 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 8, 11:47 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >  God's inflexible stand in maintaining His invisability and doing
> > > > nothing in creation
> > > > continue to puzzle many as to why some still believe in a Sky Fairy!
>
> > > He remains 'invincible' only to those who would not believe that He
> > > exists.
>
> > Observer
> > You have failed to provide any any scientifically verifiable
> > substantiating data, therefore,  that such ever existed or committed
> > any act in or on this universe or even any completing reasons to
> > believe in such or  the erroneous superstitious filth of the bible.
>
> > Yours is a case, lost completely in, and locked within the confines of
> > stupidity and abject ignorance.
>
> I find your polarity fascinating.
> As I understand you, anything that is not supported by scientifically
> verifiable substantiating data is to be deemed the product of
> stupidity and abject ignorance and superstitious filth as well.
> Do I have this broad, sweeping statement correct?

And if it's not correct, then what exactly is the point of flinging
highly polarized spittle in that highly unbalanced fashion other than
to vent blistering emotion or to drive an agenda of propaganda in a
verbal saber-rattling exercise?

Either way, I put to you that you do not help your cause. Instead all
you demonstrate is living proof of excess breeding excess. Or that
rabies is infectious.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Apr 8, 5:07 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 11:47 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  God's inflexible stand in maintaining His invisability and doing
> > nothing in creation
> > continue to puzzle many as to why some still believe in a Sky Fairy!
>
> He remains 'invincible' only to those who would not believe that He
> exists.

You seem to be confused between the words "invisible" and
"invincible".

But if you meant "invisible" then the question becomes "is God visible
to you?"

> > On Apr 8, 11:11 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 3:55 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > “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?”
>
> > >     God's inflexible stand in maintaining His laws in creation
> > > continue to puzzle many. Such things as evil and good are necessary
> > > components of creation. One identify the other. Choice is then used to
> > > determine one's preference for any of them. God's will to prevent evil
> > > is inherent in man's aversion to that which is not good. To blame God
> > > for creating such principles is to declare that we lack the capacity
> > > and will-power to resist that which is evil. Many have successfully

> > > lived evil-free lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[PD]

On Apr 9, 2:36 pm, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Blaming the victims is one of the typical (and many) rhetorical
> canards theists employ to try and explain away the contradictions and
> inconsistencies of the bible. According to the Christian mythos, god
> is the creator of all things.  In that capacity he is responsible for
> the good and evil in the world. Thus, if there is evil in the world it
> is of god's doing. He is the architect of the universe and what it
> contains is the direct results of his actions.
>
> Obviously, it always was god's intent to introduce evil into his
> creation, or there wouldn't have been a talking snake, or Beelzebub
> and the like.  To insist it's humankind's fault employs the same
> twisted logic as claiming a woman is responsible for being raped
> because she was attractive and wearing a pretty dress.
>
> Like I've said in the past, the architect designs inherent flaws into
> his design of the house, it isn't the fault of the occupants that it
> collapses and kills them.  I mean, unless you believe in the bible.

There's a very fuzzy zone of culpability and responsibility here.

First, let's escape from the notion that that which is created behaves
EXACTLY as envisaged by the the creator.
Let's imagine, just for the sake of argument and *deliberately*
abstracting from God just so we can get some concepts straight, that
someone figures out how to design a computer (say) that has the
capability of *unplanned emergent phenomena*. Let's just supposed, for
example, that this device knows how to create art of its *own* making.
What this device produces comes as a great surprise to the inventor of
the device, and the fact that it produces art that the inventor would
not have conceived by himself startles him. In some sense, this is a
fabulous success, because it is doing exactly what was hoped -- the
*unexpected*. But it gets a little dodgy now whether the results of
this device are the responsibility of the device or the responsibility
of the device's designer. One can argue that there is at least a
*shared* responsibility, or that the device is culpable in some
fashion and the designer is culpable in a different fashion. But I
think it would be foolish in this example to say, clearly and
unilaterally, that the responsibility of all the products of the
device belong to the designer. It's at least a complicated question.

Now suppose the device starts generating slasher art or degrading
pornography....

[PD]

On Apr 10, 1:18 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Name a system that would not work if everyone cooperated?

Totalitarianism.

[Steve in Virginia]

The inability to do good is the result of the so-called hand of god in
his creation. As an omniscient being, it is impossible for god not to
have been aware what the result of his creation would be. Another one
of those theological inconsistencies.

Steve

[Steve in Virginia]

Sophistry.

[Observer]

On Apr 21, 2:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 4:04 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 5:07 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 8, 11:47 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >  God's inflexible stand in maintaining His invisability and doing
> > > > nothing in creation
> > > > continue to puzzle many as to why some still believe in a Sky Fairy!
>
> > > He remains 'invincible' only to those who would not believe that He
> > > exists.
>
> > Observer
> > You have failed to provide any any scientifically verifiable
> > substantiating data, therefore,  that such ever existed or committed
> > any act in or on this universe or even any completing reasons to
> > believe in such or  the erroneous superstitious filth of the bible.
>
> > Yours is a case, lost completely in, and locked within the confines of
> > stupidity and abject ignorance.
>
> I find your polarity fascinating.

Observer
I think not. I would rather suggest that you have not the mental
acuity to grasp what is proffered you. I find that a pity.

> As I understand you, anything that is not supported by scientifically
> verifiable substantiating data is to be deemed the product of
> stupidity and abject ignorance and superstitious filth as well.


> Do I have this broad, sweeping statement correct?
>
>
>
>

Observer

I will tell you once again exactly where of I speak and I hope that
you have at least the rudimentary intelligence to grasp it this time.

My model of the of the actualities upon which humanity depends and is
obligated to learn to understand, as a right of survival ,consists of
the physical universe, including the segment to which we are privy,the
components thereof , it's inhabitants, the interactions there between
and the consequences there of.

Such is a superior model, in that provides for the acquisition and
testing of scientifically verifiable data by which to enable accurate
prognostications.

I reject completely any model as being spurious, which contains the
non-concept of deity and all superstition based beliefs in such as a
supernaturality as the product of demented minds and as being
completely non-productive in that it leads not to edification but
delivers us from our responsibility to engage in such edifying
endeavors as are necessary to the survival of our progeny.

Now as for the screaming insanity of such sadomasochistic,
pathological, and quite stupid contents of the bible, and all god
centered belief systems (what ever that might mean to the dimwits
who cherish such mental onanism) I say fie on them for their
irresponsibility/ignorance/stupidity.

Is that finally clear enough for you or do you intend to once again
embellish my position with nonsense as you did before?

Oh and I don't give a flying fuck what zombie like model you cling to
as it is meaningless and tends not towards edification.


Psychonomist
.

[PD]

On Apr 21, 7:50 pm, Steve in Virginia <resurgam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sophistry.

Well, pardon me for thinking that you've grabbed the nearest dismissal
phrase you could grab to toss over your left shoulder when someone
asks you a hard question.

[Jeff W]

On 4/21/2011 11:20 AM, thea wrote:

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jeff W <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/13/2011 6:55 AM, thea wrote:

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Steve in Virginia <chandl...@gmail.com> wrote:

But according to the Christian propaganda, humankind is flawed because
Eve eat some magic fruit she wasn't supposed to eat. But an omniscient
god would have known that.  So why blame countless generations for the
transgression of those two, when god was already aware what was going
to happen even before he started the creation?

Oh, wait...because it provides the irrational justification to paint
the entire human race as sinful.  In turn that requires the uneducated
and unknowing masses to turn to the con men and false promises of
religion to obtain an unnecessary salvation  for imaginary sins, that
occurred in a place that exist only in the imagination.

Cheers,

Steve

Except it was not the *fruit* that caused the problem -- it was the
disobedience to a command of God.

Jeff - And that was accomplished BEFORE the fruit was eaten,
 due to a sinful nature being endowed to you by your creator.

Adam sinned and I believe Adam was the male.  In other words, don't blame
Eve as she wasn't even told not to eat as she had not been *made* yet.

Jeff - Sin is disobedience to your deity.  Since Eve did NOT state "Adam said god commanded ...",
 and instead stated "God commanded", Eve sinned FIRST according to your book.
She KNEW your god commanded that the fruit not be eaten.

I always wondered what would have happened if Adam, who brought
sin into the world with his disobedience, had not eaten what the
woman offered to him.
After all, it was not the woman's fault - she got her information second
hand from Adam.

Jeff - Then no man after 100 A.D. would be guilty of sin, since ALL of them
 would have received info about Jesus, and the requirements for saving them,
 second hand.

Adam had a son by the name of Seth, and Seth had a son by the namof Enosh.
Enosh was the first time man began to call upon the name of the Lord.
So Adam's grandson believed in the God who made Adam.
Genesis 4:26.

Jeff - That had nothing to do with what I stated.  Are you just randomly writing babble?

 

And, another question, did they realize they were naked when the
woman ate, or did they only realize this after Adam ate.

Jeff - Why would that matter?  Is being naked evil?
They were ashamed, so it cannot have been good to be naked.
Thus your god created them with the sinful nature, AND naked,
 both of which are evil.  Way to go Yahweh!

I think they only realized their sin after Adam ate -- because it is Adam's
fault we are in the shape we are in today.

Jeff - I think you have reading, and gender, issues.
Go ask a preacher WHO sinned first, according to the book.
Specifically in what Eve states the words commanded by your god.
Her quote is incorrect, so what are we to assume?
The fable was recorded incorrectly, or was translated wrong.

Disobedience to God's commands is deadly - and we know this.

Jeff - How? You are not dead, and you have not TALKED to anyone that is.
HOW do you know this?

All men have to die the first death.  You also will die one day and after
that the judgement.
But all men do not have to die the second death which is being separated
from *light* for eternity.

Jeff - Given your babble's description of the "light", we are all better off being separated from it.

 

However, we also know that God made an immediate sacrifice
to save Adam and Eve with coats of skin.
God loves us.
thea

Jeff - How again do you know this? You were not there when the earth was formed,
 and you have not TALKED to anyone that was.  You are taking the word of another
 MAN when reading a holy BOOK.

see above about Enosh.

Jeff - And none of those people wrote anything down.
Who did?  It is attributed to Moses, an Egyptian.
Did he really write any of the OT books?
Again, you are accepting the word of another,
 and that is not KNOWING, it is BELIEVING.

-- 
JEFF

[Jeff W]

Jeff - I have to disagree. Since you are the one defining what a "god" is,
You ARE defining "his" characteristics, including whether or not "god"
exists.

The reason Jews won't describe Yahweh as anything other than "I AM":
assigning ANY characteristic, to a god, would be tantamount to worshiping
man's inadequate depiction of the "divine", and not Yahweh.
http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm
--

JEFF

[PD]

On Apr 26, 4:25 pm, Jeff W <jeffw7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/21/2011 11:30 AM, PD wrote:> On Apr 6, 9:55 pm, Eris<vith...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> Is he neither able nor willing?
> >> Then why call him God?”
> > Because God's characteristics are not forced by us calling him God.
> > God is whatever he is, whether we think that is worthy of being called
> > God or not.
>
> Jeff - I have to disagree. Since you are the one defining what a "god" is,
> You ARE defining "his" characteristics, including whether or not "god"
> exists.

No sir, I am not defining God's characteristics at all. I'm trying to
find out WHAT God is. Wouldn't dream of DEFINING what God is.

Likewise with gravity -- scientists don't attempt to DEFINE gravity.
They want to account for certain observations, and there are enough
regularities to formulate some guesses as to what is going on that
produces those observations. Those guesses have been dramatically
different throughout the ages, everything from a flux of superlight
particles in all directions to a field in empty space to no force at
all in curved space to an artifact of a symmetry between bosons and
fermions on a vibrating string in 11 dimensions. Those are all
searches for a better model of gravity.

I'm looking to improve my model of God.

>
> The reason Jews won't describe Yahweh as anything other than "I AM":
> assigning ANY characteristic, to a god, would be tantamount to worshiping
> man's inadequate depiction of the "divine", and not Yahweh.http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm

And I'm sympathetic to that complaint.

> --
>
> JEFF

[Eris]

Gravity is demonstrable.
The demonstrations are reproducible.
Gravity is reliable.
Religion is not.

[PD]

On Apr 26, 5:20 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gravity is demonstrable.
> The demonstrations are reproducible.
> Gravity is reliable.

Not the models of gravity. Not reliable at all. Been chucked whole
cloth several times.

> Religion is not.

You mean, God is not. I agree with that. God is not subject to
scientific investigation. I wasn't saying God is just like gravity.
What I was saying is that we as human beings don't DEFINE gravity --
we investigate gravity. We also don't DEFINE God -- we investigate
God. The tools and methods by which we investigate gravity are
completely different than those we use to investigate God. Doesn't
change the fact that you don't DEFINE something to investigate it.

[Eris]

Gμν = 8πG/c4 Tμν is the same for all sciences.
God is different for each religion.

[PD]

On Apr 26, 5:44 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gμν = 8πG/c4 Tμν is the same for all sciences.

Wait. Then so is F=GMm/r^2. Except the two of them disagree in certain
places. Hmmm....
And by the way Gμν = 8πG/c4 Tμν is known not to be the final story
also.

> God is different for each religion.

No. God is the same. The *descriptions* of God are different and
conflict with each other.
Compare with Gμν = 8πG/c4 Tμν and F=GMm/r^2, which are different and
conflict with each other, even though they both describe the same
gravity.

I'm sure you had a point. What was it again?

[Simon Ewins]

On 4/26/2011 6:58 PM, PD wrote:
> On Apr 26, 5:44 pm, Eris<vith...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> GοΏ½οΏ½ = 8οΏ½G/c4 TοΏ½οΏ½ is the same for all sciences.

>
> Wait. Then so is F=GMm/r^2. Except the two of them disagree in certain
> places. Hmmm....

> And by the way GοΏ½οΏ½ = 8οΏ½G/c4 TοΏ½οΏ½ is known not to be the final story

> also.
>
>> God is different for each religion.
>
> No. God is the same. The *descriptions* of God are different and
> conflict with each other.

Then how do you know that what they are describing the same thing?

What you suggest (descriptions are different and in conflict) is
actually how we determine that it is NOT the same thing.

If different description that are in conflict do not delineate things
that are not the same then what the heck do you use for things that are
actually not the same?

--
Musique

http://www.reverbnation.com/simonewins

"You can see a lot by just looking."
[Yogi Berra]

[Eris]

If there was a God it would be obvious to everyone.
The God would know things the writers of his holy books did not know.
The God would know that the earth was round and not flat.
The God would know that women menstruating were not filth that had to
be cleansed after their mens.
The God would know that the earth orbits the earth not vice versa.

On Apr 26, 6:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 5:44 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > Gìí = 8ðG/c4 Tìí is the same for all sciences.

>
> Wait. Then so is F=GMm/r^2. Except the two of them disagree in certain
> places. Hmmm....

> And by the way Gìí = 8ðG/c4 Tìí is known not to be the final story

> also.
>
> > God is different for each religion.
>
> No. God is the same. The *descriptions* of God are different and
> conflict with each other.

> Compare with Gìí = 8ðG/c4 Tìí and F=GMm/r^2, which are different and

[Rupert]

On Apr 27, 8:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 5:44 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > Gìí = 8ðG/c4 Tìí is the same for all sciences.

>
> Wait. Then so is F=GMm/r^2. Except the two of them disagree in certain
> places. Hmmm....

> And by the way Gìí = 8ðG/c4 Tìí is known not to be the final story

> also.
>
> > God is different for each religion.
>
> No. God is the same. The *descriptions* of God are different and
> conflict with each other.

> Compare with Gìí = 8ðG/c4 Tìí and F=GMm/r^2, which are different and

> conflict with each other, even though they both describe the same
> gravity.
>
> I'm sure you had a point. What was it again?

When do the religious hypotheses start to face the hard tribunal of
empirical verification in the same way that physical hypotheses do?

[Observer]

On Apr 9, 12:09 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 6:17 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 3:11 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 3:55 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > “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?”

>
> > >     God's inflexible stand in maintaining His laws in creation
> > > continue to puzzle many. Such things as evil and good are necessary
> > > components of creation. One identify the other. Choice is then used to
> > > determine one's preference for any of them. God's will to prevent evil
> > > is inherent in man's aversion to that which is not good. To blame God
> > > for creating such principles is to declare that we lack the capacity
> > > and will-power to resist that which is evil. Many have successfully
> > > lived evil-free lives.
>

> > LL:If god wanted man to be free of bad acts he would have created us
> > that way. (I don't use the word evil. It means nothing.) Instead he
> > created man with a capacity to commit bad acts and used it as a test--
> > a test that was and is unnecessary. This only shows that the whole
> > philosophy of a powerful god is completely contradictory.
>
> There is nothing wrong with having the capacity for both good and bad.
> Between the two, there is also the capacity to choose.


Observer
To what end , this mindless superfluity?


 Life can be
> exciting if man makes the right choices. God knows the tendencies in
> man, and He has made laws that ensure we do not experience joy if we
> chose the bad. God wants us to chart our course in life in order for
> us to taste real joy that comes from personal victory.To have made
> everything so simple would have amounted to removing that uniqueness
> in man.
>

Obs
The product of demented cognitive bias and a commitment to self
imposed ignorance, and therefor of criminal intent,

> > You can't know whether anyone leads a life completely free of bad
> > acts. You can only go by what you see. You have no idea what is under
> > the surface.

Observer
More mindless superfluity and again I ask, To what end?


Humans have the ability to do bad acts. If you believe in
> > a creator god you have to believe he created man with that ability, so
> > he's 100% responsible for it, in my opinion.


Observer
Responsible for what?


You can't rationally
> > argue that your god is all powerful but that he doesn't use that power
> > in order to test man's capacity for bad acts--which he created in the
> > first place-- and also argue that he is thereby not responsible for
> > the results.
>

Observer

Who he in the second case?

If you refuse to organize your thoughts and the expression there of ,
why do you bother to post?

Psychonomist


> Certainly, there are men and women who, in spite of  seeming
> difficulties in life, have lived in ways that can be described as
> good. God could be responsible for man's ills if He had not given to
> man the ability to decide for himself. God's decisions are faultless,
> if we give ourselves to understanding Him.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ************************
>
> > *****************

[PD]

On Apr 26, 8:57 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If there was a God it would be obvious to everyone.

This is YOUR expectation. It is a demand that YOU place on God. What
you are saying is that if God existed according to YOUR idea of God,
then that God would HAVE to behave the way you expect him to. However,
God does not have to conform to your image. Rather, what you might
consider doing is having your image of God converge to what he really
is. Now, given that God is NOT obvious to everyone, how does YOUR
image of God need to be changed to respect that rather obvious fact?

> The God would know things the writers of his holy books did not know.
> The God would know that the earth was round and not flat.
> The God would know that women menstruating were not filth that had to
> be cleansed after their mens.
> The God would know that the earth orbits the earth not  vice versa.

Yes, God would know things that the writers of those holy books did
not know. So why do you then expect that what God knows would
necessarily be in those books, since God DID NOT WRITE THEM???

[PD]

And why do you feel that is necessary?

Not everything that humans hold to be true are required to face the
hard tribunal of empirical verification and scientific analysis. God
is not unique in this fashion. Why do you demand that God MUST be
placed in the scientific analysis camp, when some other things are
not?

If you believe that EVERYTHING must face the hard tribunal of
empirical verification, I'm afraid that you're a bit naive about how
the human mind works.

[rappoccio]

On Apr 21, 5:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

You've basically just summed up the "if god is unable..." bits of the
quote.

We all acknowledge that a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient deity that
doesn't exercise immediate control over the constituent parts is not a
logical contradiction. But then we get to the "why call it God" part
of the quote ;)

[rappoccio]

On Apr 26, 6:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 26, 4:25 pm, Jeff W <jeffw7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 4/21/2011 11:30 AM, PD wrote:> On Apr 6, 9:55 pm, Eris<vith...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > >> Is he neither able nor willing?
> > >> Then why call him God?”
> > > Because God's characteristics are not forced by us calling him God.
> > > God is whatever he is, whether we think that is worthy of being called
> > > God or not.
>
> > Jeff - I have to disagree. Since you are the one defining what a "god" is,
> > You ARE defining "his" characteristics, including whether or not "god"
> > exists.
>
> No sir, I am not defining God's characteristics at all. I'm trying to
> find out WHAT God is. Wouldn't dream of DEFINING what God is.
>
> Likewise with gravity -- scientists don't attempt to DEFINE gravity.
> They want to account for certain observations, and there are enough
> regularities to formulate some guesses as to what is going on that
> produces those observations. Those guesses have been dramatically
> different throughout the ages, everything from a flux of superlight
> particles in all directions to a field in empty space to no force at
> all in curved space to an artifact of a symmetry between bosons and
> fermions on a vibrating string in 11 dimensions. Those are all
> searches for a better model of gravity.
>
> I'm looking to improve my model of God.

What are the criteria you use to accomplish this? What's the feedback
loop?

[rappoccio]

And probably mention something about antibiotics and bacteria ;).

[rappoccio]

On Apr 27, 10:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 8:57 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If there was a God it would be obvious to everyone.
>
> This is YOUR expectation. It is a demand that YOU place on God. What
> you are saying is that if God existed according to YOUR idea of God,
> then that God would HAVE to behave the way you expect him to. However,
> God does not have to conform to your image. Rather, what you might
> consider doing is having your image of God converge to what he really
> is. Now, given that God is NOT obvious to everyone, how does YOUR
> image of God need to be changed to respect that rather obvious fact?
>
> > The God would know things the writers of his holy books did not know.
> > The God would know that the earth was round and not flat.
> > The God would know that women menstruating were not filth that had to
> > be cleansed after their mens.
> > The God would know that the earth orbits the earth not  vice versa.
>
> Yes, God would know things that the writers of those holy books did
> not know. So why do you then expect that what God knows would
> necessarily be in those books, since God DID NOT WRITE THEM???
>

Most theists think that god did, or at least vastly inspired them.

You're a very atypical theist PD ;)

[PD]

Because God is what God is, not what I expect God to be based on some
preconception I've attached to a label. It's that simple.

[PD]

On Apr 27, 10:29 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 10:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 8:57 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If there was a God it would be obvious to everyone.
>
> > This is YOUR expectation. It is a demand that YOU place on God. What
> > you are saying is that if God existed according to YOUR idea of God,
> > then that God would HAVE to behave the way you expect him to. However,
> > God does not have to conform to your image. Rather, what you might
> > consider doing is having your image of God converge to what he really
> > is. Now, given that God is NOT obvious to everyone, how does YOUR
> > image of God need to be changed to respect that rather obvious fact?
>
> > > The God would know things the writers of his holy books did not know.
> > > The God would know that the earth was round and not flat.
> > > The God would know that women menstruating were not filth that had to
> > > be cleansed after their mens.
> > > The God would know that the earth orbits the earth not  vice versa.
>
> > Yes, God would know things that the writers of those holy books did
> > not know. So why do you then expect that what God knows would
> > necessarily be in those books, since God DID NOT WRITE THEM???
>
> Most theists think that god did, or at least vastly inspired them.

"Inspired" literally means "breathed into".

I think this goes along the lines of what I told you earlier about the
modern connotation of "hell" and how different that is from what was
understood at the time of biblical writing.

I think people interpret or connote "inspired" to mean "dictated",
when nothing of the sort needs to be drawn.

Shifting idiom is responsible for SO much confusion surrounding
biblical interpretation. See also my post about storytelling devices
used in the bible, especially when it comes to interpretation of
"prophecy".

As for what "most theists think", this is a point so important that
I'm tempted to make a separate post about it. Frankly, I don't care
what most theists think. Or rather, I don't really care that a lot of
theists give the impression that they haven't thought it through very
much. The question really is, can one think things through and still
be a theist? I believe the answer to this, of course, is yes, even if
that means that one doesn't necessarily make the same statements that
a lot of theists make.

To put this at a personal level, I believe that you, Rappoccio, could
well be a thinking theist, and that being a theist does not require
you to stop thinking and it does not require you to say the same
things that you hear other theists say. (That being said, I'm still
not trying to sway you into being a theist. I'm just exploring perhaps
the difference between what I think being a theist entails and what
you think being a theist entails. But that's just a guess.)

I think this is a fundamental problem: the misperception that being a
theist requires that one echo the things that one has heard other
theists say -- which could of course lead to understandable
resistance.

[Observer]

On Apr 21, 2:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 1:18 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Name a system that would not work if everyone cooperated?
>
> Totalitarianism.

Observer

As usual ,your habituated, one dimensional thought processes betray
your tendency, to rush to judgement, with little or no depth of
critical thought.

Yes, totalitarianism is a method of coercion, productive of heavily
constrained and modified behaviors , but to postulate that mass
cooperation can only be produced by such, is absent any consideration
of the vast array of influences available to the eliciting, as
voluntary, participation in a well thought out social structure
consistent with a, vitally necessary, understanding of the physical
universe ,including but not limited to the to segment to which we are
privy, it's components , it's inhabitants, the interactions there-
between, and the CONSEQUENCES there of*, which can produce the best of
all worlds wherein lack of cooperation is unthinkable to an educated
populace .

Key words being educated, understanding, and well thought out social
structure . ( all of which can be achieved by the application of
scientific method to the obvious needs of human kind accompanied by an
universal dissemination of such data as is acquired thereby .)

Thus is shifted the dependence upon subjective morality to the best
available understanding of objective functionality based upon the
progress of such a vitally necessary inquiry into the above *.


Regards

Psychonomist


Regards

Psychonomist

[Observer]

On Apr 13, 4:55 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Steve in Virginia
> <chandler2...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > But according to the Christian propaganda, humankind is flawed because
> > Eve eat some magic fruit she wasn't supposed to eat. But an omniscient
> > god would have known that.  So why blame countless generations for the
> > transgression of those two, when god was already aware what was going
> > to happen even before he started the creation?
>
> > Oh, wait...because it provides the irrational justification to paint
> > the entire human race as sinful.  In turn that requires the uneducated
> > and unknowing masses to turn to the con men and false promises of
> > religion to obtain an unnecessary salvation  for imaginary sins, that
> > occurred in a place that exist only in the imagination.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Steve
>
> Except it was not the *fruit* that caused the problem -- it was the
> disobedience to a command of God.

Observer

It never happened that such as a god ever produced any scientifically
verifiable act in or on this universe.

Your book of collected primitive superstitious pathological myths ,
not withstanding.

I herewith accuse you of dissemination of either criminal
misdirection
or pathologically based misanthropy in so doing.

In other words , thea , you are either a liar or are profoundly
demented.

> I always wondered what would have happened if Adam, who brought
> sin into the world with his disobedience, had not eaten what the
> woman offered to him.

Observer
Just observe the world around you and you will come to understand how
it is, was, and would be had such never occurred.

> After all, it was not the woman's fault - she got her information second
> hand from Adam.

> And, another question, did they realize they were naked when the
> woman ate, or did they only realize this after Adam ate.

Observer
Neither they are just specters and mythical representations produced
in the minds of the ignorant and superstitious a result of false
beliefs.

> Disobedience to God's commands is deadly - and we know this.

> However, we also know that God made an immediate sacrifice
> to save Adam and Eve with coats of skin.

Observer

In as much as,it never happened that such as a god ever produced any
scientifically verifiable act in or on this universe you are faced
with being left to believe in unsupportable nonsense consisting of
sadomasochistic, misanthropic , misdirection , and deceit .


> God loves us.

Observer

Reread the above !

Psychonomist
> thea

[Observer]

On Apr 21, 2:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 9, 2:36 pm, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Blaming the victims is one of the typical (and many) rhetorical
> > canards theists employ to try and explain away the contradictions and
> > inconsistencies of the bible. According to the Christian mythos, god
> > is the creator of all things.  In that capacity he is responsible for
> > the good and evil in the world. Thus, if there is evil in the world it
> > is of god's doing. He is the architect of the universe and what it
> > contains is the direct results of his actions.
>
> > Obviously, it always was god's intent to introduce evil into his
> > creation, or there wouldn't have been a talking snake, or Beelzebub
> > and the like.  To insist it's humankind's fault employs the same
> > twisted logic as claiming a woman is responsible for being raped
> > because she was attractive and wearing a pretty dress.
>
> > Like I've said in the past, the architect designs inherent flaws into
> > his design of the house, it isn't the fault of the occupants that it
> > collapses and kills them.  I mean, unless you believe in the bible.
>

> There's a very fuzzy zone of culpability and responsibility here.
>
> First, let's escape from the notion that that which is created behaves> EXACTLY as envisaged by the the creator.

Observer

Rather let's escape from the notion that this primitive,
sadomasochistic, misanthropic filth represents any accurate discourse
on actualities other than a study of primitive superstition.

> Let's imagine, just for the sake of argument and *deliberately*
> abstracting from God just so we can get some concepts straight, that
> someone figures out how to design a computer (say) that has the
> capability of *unplanned emergent phenomena*. Let's just supposed, for
> example, that this device knows how to create art of its *own* making.
> What this device produces comes as a great surprise to the inventor of
> the device, and the fact that it produces art that the inventor would
> not have conceived by himself startles him. In some sense, this is a
> fabulous success, because it is doing exactly what was hoped -- the
> *unexpected*. But it gets a little dodgy now whether the results of
> this device are the responsibility of the device or the responsibility
> of the device's designer. One can argue that there is at least a
> *shared* responsibility, or that the device is culpable in some
> fashion and the designer is culpable in a different fashion. But I
> think it would be foolish in this example to say, clearly and
> unilaterally, that the responsibility of all the products of the
> device belong to the designer. It's at least a complicated question

Observer

The problem you have is that you are unable to understand that the
existence of a god thing is purely the product of undisciplined and
uneducated nonsense , and that the authors of such are in no way
trustworthy, as to understanding the universe to the suchness of
which( to use a valuable Tathata concept) , I have so many times
referred .

>
> Now suppose the device starts generating slasher art or degrading
> pornography....
>
>
>

Observer
Your flights of fantasy and nonanologis analogies (to coin a phrase)
are meaningful only to you and are not weighted to any persuasion or
edification.


Regards

Psychonomist

[PD]

On Apr 27, 12:39 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 1:18 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Name a system that would not work if everyone cooperated?
>
> > Totalitarianism.
>
> Observer
>
> As usual ,your habituated, one dimensional thought processes betray
> your tendency, to rush to judgement, with little or no depth of
> critical thought.
>
> Yes, totalitarianism is a method of coercion, productive of heavily
> constrained and modified behaviors , but to postulate that mass
> cooperation can only be produced by such,

Woah, pal. That's not at all what I said. Please apply the restraining
straps to your lips and try rereading.

[PD]

I would argue that this is a frivolous charge. You are saying, as I
understand it, that the explication of ANY set of beliefs, regardless
of content, that is not accompanied by verifiable scientific support,
is to be considered a criminal and sociopathic act.

I get that you honestly believe that scientific investigation is the
ONLY worthwhile activity of the human mind, despite the fact that you
are neither a trained nor practicing scientist.

Where things get silly is the notion that anyone who disagrees with
you is a criminal or a sociopath. Extreme egotism is a disorder, pal.
Look in the mirror.

[Observer]

On Apr 21, 9:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 9:55 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > Is he neither able nor willing?
> > Then why call him God?”
>

> Because God's characteristics are not forced by us calling him God.
> God is whatever he is, whether we think that is worthy of being called
> God or not.

Observer
In as much as there exists no scientifically, verifiable
substantiating data for the existence of or any ACT of a god in or on
this universe I must object to the phrase *God is*. Such is not but
the product of wild ass guesses, used in avoidance of an admission
relating to a lack of understanding as to actuality.

There are none who can claim such understanding , not even the
omniscient PD.

The condition of near infinite ignorance is shared by all. Our
responsibility is to take the surest path available for traversing
from our present condition to ever diminishing conditions thereof.This
consists of dealing with and learning to understand what is a given
for us to understand step by step and far less from wild ass guesses
for which no substantiation is either apparent or even probable.


Regards

Psychonomist

[PD]

On Apr 27, 2:23 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 2:36 pm, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Blaming the victims is one of the typical (and many) rhetorical
> > > canards theists employ to try and explain away the contradictions and
> > > inconsistencies of the bible. According to the Christian mythos, god
> > > is the creator of all things.  In that capacity he is responsible for
> > > the good and evil in the world. Thus, if there is evil in the world it
> > > is of god's doing. He is the architect of the universe and what it
> > > contains is the direct results of his actions.
>
> > > Obviously, it always was god's intent to introduce evil into his
> > > creation, or there wouldn't have been a talking snake, or Beelzebub
> > > and the like.  To insist it's humankind's fault employs the same
> > > twisted logic as claiming a woman is responsible for being raped
> > > because she was attractive and wearing a pretty dress.
>
> > > Like I've said in the past, the architect designs inherent flaws into
> > > his design of the house, it isn't the fault of the occupants that it
> > > collapses and kills them.  I mean, unless you believe in the bible.
>
> > There's a very fuzzy zone of culpability and responsibility here.
>
> > First, let's escape from the notion that that which is created behaves> EXACTLY as envisaged by the the creator.
>
> Observer
>
> Rather let's escape from the notion that this primitive,
> sadomasochistic, misanthropic filth represents any accurate discourse
> on actualities other than a study of primitive superstition.

If by actualities, you mean objectively verifiable by scientific
means, then yes, let's escape from the notion of representation of
accurate discourse on actualities.

>
>
>
> > Let's imagine, just for the sake of argument and *deliberately*
> > abstracting from God just so we can get some concepts straight, that
> > someone figures out how to design a computer (say) that has the
> > capability of *unplanned emergent phenomena*. Let's just supposed, for
> > example, that this device knows how to create art of its *own* making.
> > What this device produces comes as a great surprise to the inventor of
> > the device, and the fact that it produces art that the inventor would
> > not have conceived by himself startles him. In some sense, this is a
> > fabulous success, because it is doing exactly what was hoped -- the
> > *unexpected*. But it gets a little dodgy now whether the results of
> > this device are the responsibility of the device or the responsibility
> > of the device's designer. One can argue that there is at least a
> > *shared* responsibility, or that the device is culpable in some
> > fashion and the designer is culpable in a different fashion. But I
> > think it would be foolish in this example to say, clearly and
> > unilaterally, that the responsibility of all the products of the
> > device belong to the designer. It's at least a complicated question
>
> Observer
>
> The problem you have is that you are unable to understand that the
> existence of a god thing is purely the product of undisciplined and
> uneducated nonsense , and that the authors of such are in no way
> trustworthy, as to understanding the universe to  the suchness of
> which( to use a valuable Tathata concept)   , I have so many times
> referred .

Well, you may perceive that to be my problem, sure.
I perceive the problem that you cannot abstract the argument from God
as I asked you to try to bend your mind around in the opening sentence
of the paragraph above.
Now, you say that because you cannot perform that mental exercise, the
analogy is meaningful only to me because it is not meaningful to you.
I see.

At this point, Observer, allow me to observe that flowering up prose
and mounting it high upon stilts in the way that you do does not seem
to accomplish the task that you hope it will achieve.

[Rupert]

A hypothesis about the external world ought to be empirically
verified, yes.

[PD]

And I disagree.

[Eris]

Or washing your hands before preparing a meal or delivering a helpless
baby?

[Eris]

Omniscient, omnipotent, all knowing etc. etc.

[PD]

On Apr 27, 6:30 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Omniscient, omnipotent, all knowing etc. etc.

As I said, if you demand that God be what your label says he is,
rather than trying to find out what God really is, then I think you'd
be setting yourself up for automatic failure.

[PD]

It's rather complex, and the weightings of the different aspects are
probably specific to me, though others may invoke the same mechanisms
with different weightings.

Part of it has to do with subjective resonance, either by myself or in
collective with others -- using "internal wiring" to test. Part of it
has to do with adoption of texts which are trusted *at some level*.
Part of it has to do with the internal processing of experience.

I'll see if I can explain how this happens with a distantly related
cousin: art appreciation. There are certain photographers who are
considered famous and influential and their work is generally regarded
as high quality. In some cases, I can just look at a photograph and
say, "Yes, I 'understand' why this photograph is considered
exceptional." In other cases, it takes discussion with other people to
even lay a finger on what it exceptional about a photograph. In still
other cases, the beauty is not immediately obvious to me, and in such
cases, what usually happens is that someone starts telling me about
usage of light, negative space, composition ratios, depth of field.
This is done not so much as to *define* what is beautiful, but rather
to just draw my attention to certain aspects that I may not have
noticed before, and this allows me to process how those considerations
might be included in an assessment of beauty. And when this happens, I
find that my own tastes for what is exceptional perceptibly shift
toward what is included in art galleries -- though of course, I still
have my own excursions and flavors.

To take a slightly more familiar example, consider how it is that
theorists decide which avenue appears to be most promising in terms of
a new, fundamental theory. I'm not talking about the verification
stage. I'm talking about deciding which ideas appear to be worth
investing time in to even get them developed. What's the "promise"
value? Here, too, there is a real sense of esthetics, according to
metaprinciples OTHER THAN experimental verification. This is where
terms like "elegance" and "beauty" and "simplicity" are invoked. This
may be expressed by how many technical problems are solved in one
stroke, or on the basis of faith in a principle like the principle of
relativity, or which assumptions are relaxed and how "ugly" those
assumptions are and therefore how much "ugliness" is thereby removed.
This is how completely unverifiable models like the multiverse
landscape or the holographic principle get embraced and pushed forward
LONG before there is anything that can be empirically verified. In
many cases, note, the parallels to art appreciation hold. Sometimes it
is internal instinct. Sometimes it comes as a result of discussion
with others about what "elegance" of a theory even means, sometimes by
referring to examples.

In a sense, the "nose" for God feels much the same as the "nose" for
the attractiveness of a physical theory.

There IS risk in this process of being wrong. But nevertheless, it's
how the mind tends to work.

[Eris]

A stealth God?

[PD]

On Apr 27, 8:13 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A stealth God?

No, just a nonobvious one.

But then again, I'm used to that. The nature of atoms and electrons
and gravity are not obvious either. And I don't have any reason to
expect that they SHOULD be obvious. I hold the same thing to be true
of God. I have no reason to expect that God SHOULD be obvious.

[Eris]

Is the bible an accurate representation of God and his message to
earthlings?

[Joe]

Ah, chestnuts!

On Apr 6, 10:55 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> “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?

1. From the free will of a creature
2. From God as punishment for the evil in 1.

> Is he neither able nor willing?

He is able, and willing, and awaiting your free co-operation.

> Then why call him God?”

Because He's *that good.*

[Rupert]

Why?

[Dave]

> Why?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text

You can't prove everything by empirical validation. You can't prove if
your wife loves you or not by empirical study. You judge that on how
she behaves towards you, and you can never be absolutely sure about
why she acts as she does.

[PD]

On Apr 27, 9:50 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the bible an accurate representation of God and his message to
> earthlings?

Separate essence from detail. Is the essence accurate? Yes, I believe
so. Are all the details accurate? No.
Don't know how to separate the essence from the detail? That's where
you have to use your head and insight.

[PD]

Exactly. And there are countless other examples. Mathematics is rife
with them. The existence of the Monster Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Monster_group) is not amenable to empirical verification, and yet
it is a statement about the external world.

[rappoccio]

Okay, but that's the same thing to me. We've discussed before, so no
need to re-hash. ;)

[rappoccio]

Well, we do very, very much. Especially when they vote!

> Or rather, I don't really care that a lot of
> theists give the impression that they haven't thought it through very
> much. The question really is, can one think things through and still
> be a theist? I believe the answer to this, of course, is yes, even if
> that means that one doesn't necessarily make the same statements that
> a lot of theists make.
>
> To put this at a personal level, I believe that you, Rappoccio, could
> well be a thinking theist,

Absolutely, positively not! I will not make such a leap of faith
because there is no demonstrable reason to do so. What is the reason
to hypothesize that there is an invisible thing listening to my
thoughts and supplications, that actively cares about my life in ANY
way? There's no demonstrable evidence of any of that, and no
demonstrable reason to believe there is.

I had tried for some time to be a thinking theist. You know where that
got me?

To be a thinking atheist.

;)

> and that being a theist does not require
> you to stop thinking and it does not require you to say the same
> things that you hear other theists say. (That being said, I'm still
> not trying to sway you into being a theist. I'm just exploring perhaps
> the difference between what I think being a theist entails and what
> you think being a theist entails. But that's just a guess.)
>
> I think this is a fundamental problem: the misperception that being a
> theist requires that one echo the things that one has heard other
> theists say -- which could of course lead to understandable
> resistance.
>

Okay, but you also didn't really answer the question. If god didn't
write or inspire the Bible, then what use is the Bible when learning
about god? Why exactly is the book of Matthew any better to follow
than the book of Gilgamesh?

I know you're not trying to convince anyone to be a theist, but we're
trying to understand your personal beliefs and how you reconcile all
of these very disparate sources of information and justification
criteria.

[rappoccio]

Might have been helpful, yeah ;)

[rappoccio]

Well, wait again now... I was wondering about the feedback loop. For
theories, there is (of course!) a feedback loop, in falsifiable
prediction. No one "believes in" string theory, but we do use it as a
working hypothesis as the best quantum gravity candidate, for
instance.

What is the feedback loop for religious belief? Why are you a
Christian, not a Jain, or a Muslim, or a shamanistic sky-god
worshiper? You've obviously made a choice. You also claim that you
were never asked nor required to abandon reason here (as a thinking
theist).

Walk us through your choice, then... we're really just trying to
understand :)

[PD]

Well, let me qualify that. I do care what other theists think and I am
prone to scold them if I believe they are being wholly
counterproductive or living opposite to the teachings they claim to
follow. But I don't use what they think to determine what I should
think.

I think I addressed that in a separate post, about how I sort through
information.

[Simon Ewins]

On 4/27/2011 11:35 AM, PD wrote:
> Because God is what God is, not what I expect God to be based on some
> preconception I've attached to a label. It's that simple.

Yet elsewhere you say (incorrectly) that God's existence is a matter of
faith. Once that is corrected to say that your belief in God's existence
is a matter of faith we see that your statement is not true.

Since faith is a reflection of desire, "God is what you expect God to
be" based on a preconception that whatever God is, it must be something
that you would want.

--
Musique

http://www.reverbnation.com/simonewins

"Philosophy is life's dry-nurse, who can take care of us - but not
suckle us."
[Soren Kierkegaard]

[PD]

I actually disagree that no one "believes in" string theory. If you
are convinced *enough* that it is worth ordering your life to pursue
it, then I think that choice does reflect belief. I do not think the
choice to devote a career to string theory is all that different than
the choice to devote a life to Christianity. There is no
*positiveness* that is required, no absolute certainty. There is only
*sufficient* belief required to drive choices, and those choices
result in a particular order of life. I believe that's what
Christianity is all about.

>
> What is the feedback loop for religious belief? Why are you a
> Christian, not a Jain, or a Muslim, or a shamanistic sky-god
> worshiper? You've obviously made a choice. You also claim that you
> were never asked nor required to abandon reason here (as a thinking
> theist).

I tried to explain that above. The feedback loop is that (very loosely
coined) "resonance" phenomenon. It is the very same feedback loop that
drives one in a particular direction in art appreciation or drives on
to pursue one of many possible unified field models.

[Eris]

Speaking of the Schrödinger wave equation,
what were Schrödinger last words before he died?

[Eris]

With science we get peer review and reproducibility. With religion we
get war, hunger, rape, and individuals in the clergy that essentially
have control issues and followers who still require parental figures,
who conjure up a sociopathic deity who enjoys head games and
posturing.
HTH :-)

[PD]

On Apr 28, 11:46 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With science we get peer review and reproducibility. With religion we
> get war, hunger, rape, and individuals in the clergy that essentially
> have control issues and followers who still require parental figures,
> who conjure up a sociopathic deity who enjoys head games and
> posturing.
> HTH :-)

Well, Eris, as I said before, you see what you want to see. You see
the positive side of science and somehow neglect all the bad effects
of science. Likewise, you see the bad aspects of religion and fail to
acknowledge any of the positive aspects of religion. You are obviously
in the business of propaganda -- you have an agenda that you want to
pursue and so you will tailor the facts to suit that agenda. I
personally have not a lot of respect for propagandists.

[PD]

On Apr 28, 11:42 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Speaking of the Schrödinger wave equation,
> what were Schrödinger last words before he died?

Speaking of Vendata Hinduism, what were his last words?

[Steve in Virginia]

No, the flaw is in the fundamental design. It will fail, regardless
of what the occupants do...short of rebuilding the house. I hire an
architect I put my trust in her or his ability to understanding the
engineering requirements of building and materials science. In short
I put my faith in their skill and honesty.

God demands that we place our unwavering faith in his abilities, which
the true believer does. But the joke is on us (them?). Like an
unscrupulous architect, the design flaws have been there from the
beginning. We lack god's omnipotent knowledge and cannot know the
dangers, except for what we learn through his intermediaries. Sure
they tells us not to worry and the problems can be resolved with a
little more faith, or a little more self-denial. That if we just try
a bit harder and pray a bit longer everything will be fine - except
for when the house comes crashing down around us. Then - like you've
claimed - and it becomes our fault that we didn't slap enough paint on
those unstable walls, or properly trim the grass around the perimeter
of a faulty, crumbling foundation, or that poor dusting led to the
roof caving in.

As usual... god builds and it's humankind's fault for the shitty job.


Steve



On Apr 10, 8:56 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A declaration that we aren't capable of a permanently sustainable
> good: There is no faulty design in this case, but, rather, a refusal
> to do that which must keep the house standing.

>
> On Apr 9, 8:36 pm, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Blaming the victims is one of the typical (and many) rhetorical
> > canards theists employ to try and explain away the contradictions and
> > inconsistencies of the bible. According to the Christian mythos, god
> > is the creator of all things.  In that capacity he is responsible for
> > the good and evil in the world. Thus, if there is evil in the world it
> > is of god's doing. He is the architect of the universe and what it
> > contains is the direct results of his actions.
>
> > Obviously, it always was god's intent to introduce evil into his
> > creation, or there wouldn't have been a talking snake, or Beelzebub
> > and the like.  To insist it's humankind's fault employs the same
> > twisted logic as claiming a woman is responsible for being raped
> > because she was attractive and wearing a pretty dress.
>
> > Like I've said in the past, the architect designs inherent flaws into
> > his design of the house, it isn't the fault of the occupants that it
> > collapses and kills them.  I mean, unless you believe in the bible.
>

> > Cheers,
>
> > Steve
>
> > On Apr 8, 6:11 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > > On Apr 7, 3:55 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > “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?”
>

> > >     God's inflexible stand in maintaining His laws in creation
> > > continue to puzzle many. Such things as evil and good are necessary
> > > components of creation. One identify the other. Choice is then used to
> > > determine one's preference for any of them. God's will to prevent evil
> > > is inherent in man's aversion to that which is not good. To blame God
> > > for creating such principles is to declare that we lack the capacity
> > > and will-power to resist that which is evil. Many have successfully
> > > lived evil-free lives.

[PD]

On Apr 28, 12:24 pm, Steve in Virginia <resurgam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, the flaw is in the fundamental design.  It will fail, regardless
> of what the occupants do...short of rebuilding the house.  I hire an
> architect I put my trust in her or his ability to understanding the
> engineering requirements of building and materials science.  In short
> I put my faith in their skill and honesty.
>
> God demands that we place our unwavering faith in his abilities, which
> the true believer does.

Ability to do WHAT exactly?
God demands that we place our unwavering faith in his ability to order
things according to our specifications?
In his ability to measure up to performance metrics that we set?

No, that's not what is expected. What is *encouraged* is to trust that
God knows what he's doing, even when we do not.

[Eris]

How sanctimonious of you PD. I believe you hit a new personal low.
The personal attributes you ascribe to me seem to fit you to a tee.

[Eris]

Same as all of the guys I saw buy it in Nam
Oh Fuck.
Where were the clergy crawling under fire to comfort the soldiers?

[john.19071969@gmail.com]

On Apr 6, 9:19 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 7, 12:55 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > “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?”
>

> Would monotheism have been influential in Epicurus' culture?

If you read classical Greek literature, there are often references to
"Dios" which
depending context may refer to Zeus, or to the gods in general (just
as we use Man to refer to
humanity in general).

Dios Pater = God the Father or Zeus Pater specifically.

In Indo-European Dyus is taken to mean "shining" so

Dyus Pitar = shining father or "sky father" in India and in Indo-
European languages.

The names Zeus and Jupiter are derived from Dyus Pitar.

Since Zeus is supposed to be the father of the Greek gods and the
most powerful of them,
if he can't do something, then none of his lesser children could
presumably do it either.

So, as quoted, this verse of Epicurus is perfectly consistent with
ancient Greek beliefs.
-John

[Eris]

Which God? Ro'o-i-Te-Hiripoi the Tahitian God.