very busy but...
fiddler
my attention recently. I will post on the idiots idea of Pascal's
wager and all of the silly ideas that it invokes, I simply don't have
the time at the moment.
Until then, I'd like you to chew on this quote. Devout theists
proclaim this to be a defeated concept, without ever explaining when,
where, or how it was defeated. Christians especially call foul, yet
seem incapable of explaining the foul. An extreme case of irony
happens more often than many of you might imagine; wherein a bible
believer declares this to be an out of date writing by an ancient
author, one that has no bearing on modern life!!!! hahahaha too funny
and so sad...
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-
Lee
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
This is not nesiarily logicaly consistant.
Forgive me for getting Star Trechie on ya but I was watching a few
weeks back an episode of Voyger where Captian Janeway and the hologram
of Leonardo DeVinci are trapped on a planet, and the hologram is
having trouble understanding all the techy things that Janeway can do.
She asks him to consider that if he was a Sparrow what would he know
of the fine arts of humanity. The reply was along the lines of even
if a great master spent years explaining it to me, the limits of my
mind still would not be able to comprehend.
If we posit the existance of a creative God then the very first
consideration should be that such a being is greater than ourselves.
So to attribute the human label of malevolent to such a being is not
logicaly sound.
Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh Evil?
Evil comes from the acts of humanity. Can we call an earthquake evil?
Doris Briscoe
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
Pat
On 9 Mar, 13:51, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Only the second and third are really worth considering.
>
> Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
>
> This is not nesiarily logicaly consistant.
>
> Forgive me for getting Star Trechie on ya but I was watching a few
> weeks back an episode of Voyger where Captian Janeway and the hologram
> of Leonardo DeVinci are trapped on a planet, and the hologram is
> having trouble understanding all the techy things that Janeway can do.
>
> She asks him to consider that if he was a Sparrow what would he know
> of the fine arts of humanity. The reply was along the lines of even
> if a great master spent years explaining it to me, the limits of my
> mind still would not be able to comprehend.
>
> If we posit the existance of a creative God then the very first
> consideration should be that such a being is greater than ourselves.
> So to attribute the human label of malevolent to such a being is not
> logicaly sound.
>
> Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh Evil?
>
> Evil comes from the acts of humanity. Can we call an earthquake evil?
>
I tend to agree with Lee, for the most part, on this. Evil is a
perception of ours due to our viewing any event within a limited
context. Of course, I wouldn't limit that perception to only humans.
Any being of a certain level of intelligence may perceive evil. A dog
that is habitually abused may view that abuser as evil. But, I can't
confirm that without having a conversation with said dog. And I'm not
holding my breath on that. But I wouldn't say that the perception is
impossible.
On another note, though, the creation of the perception of evil/
malevolence most definitely comes from God, so, in that respect,
malevolence has divine origins. Also, if the universe is but a single
omnipotent entity, then that entity must, at the same time be both the
"Most Malevolent" and the "Most Benificent" entity, as there is no
other. One thing is for certain, God is, most assuredly, omnipotent
and that requires that He be the ultimate source of any 'malevolence'
perceived. But, as He is also the Most Benificent, there is no one
better to help you, as there is no other who can. Rest assured that,
if another human helps you, it is God that has helped you through that
human. Equally, if a dog helps you, then it is God that has helped
you through that dog.
Epicurus wasn't as bright as he thought he was and, if an individual
(atheist or not) takes refuge in Epicurus' limited views, then he
shows his limited hand and an inability to both think for himself and
to think outside the box. Epicurus' views on atoms having the ability
to swerve of their own free will has been demonstrated to be absolute
nonsense. And, since his view of 'free will' was based on that, his
view on that falls to the waste pile, as well. He was a man who
taught that one of the purposes of philosophy was to live without
pain, yet died of kidney stones which he admitted caused him "a
painful inability to urinate, and also dysentery, so violent that
nothing can be added to the violence of my sufferings. But the
cheerfulness of my mind, which comes from the recollection of all my
philosophical contemplation, counterbalances all these afflictions."
So, he admitted his pain, yet used his philosophy to counteract it as
best he could. I.e., his final days were steeped in his own
dichotomies. Whilst he tried his best, he still admitted pain, thus
proving that he wasn't the best practitioner of his own teachings.
May he rest in peace!!
I hope that last paragraph doesn't come across as an ad hominem
against Epicurus but as a warning to not rely on Epicurus as a valid
argumentarian against God or on atoms or regarding free will. It's as
intellectually strong as relying on Mark Twain as a source for
information regarding King Arthur.
> On 9 Mar, 05:48, fiddler <krinantrem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm going to address a few issues when I can, life has taken most of
> > my attention recently. I will post on the idiots idea of Pascal's
> > wager and all of the silly ideas that it invokes, I simply don't have
> > the time at the moment.
> > Until then, I'd like you to chew on this quote. Devout theists
> > proclaim this to be a defeated concept, without ever explaining when,
> > where, or how it was defeated. Christians especially call foul, yet
> > seem incapable of explaining the foul. An extreme case of irony
> > happens more often than many of you might imagine; wherein a bible
> > believer declares this to be an out of date writing by an ancient
> > author, one that has no bearing on modern life!!!! hahahaha too funny
> > and so sad...
>
> > 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-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
rigsy03
dismissed by some council of Christian Fathers.//We were taught that
god desired choices made by free wills rather than forced determinism.
Pat
On 11 Mar, 13:21, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That there were two gods- one good and one evil was an early heresy
> dismissed by some council of Christian Fathers.//We were taught that
> god desired choices made by free wills rather than forced determinism.
>
Yet 'free will' causes another paradox, as it allows the employer of
such to act outside the Will of God, meaning God is not omnipotent, as
one can act against His will, leaving Him impotent to prevent that.
Problem!!!!
> On Mar 8, 11:48 pm, fiddler <krinantrem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm going to address a few issues when I can, life has taken most of
> > my attention recently. I will post on the idiots idea of Pascal's
> > wager and all of the silly ideas that it invokes, I simply don't have
> > the time at the moment.
> > Until then, I'd like you to chew on this quote. Devout theists
> > proclaim this to be a defeated concept, without ever explaining when,
> > where, or how it was defeated. Christians especially call foul, yet
> > seem incapable of explaining the foul. An extreme case of irony
> > happens more often than many of you might imagine; wherein a bible
> > believer declares this to be an out of date writing by an ancient
> > author, one that has no bearing on modern life!!!! hahahaha too funny
> > and so sad...
>
> > 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?
Dinesh
evil) we define evil, and vice-verse. I doubt if it is a simple
mathematical solution like, if you have 100 evil acts enlisted and
eliminate them totally, then the world is free of evil.
Imo to think that one can eliminate evil without eliminating good, or
suffering without happiness, is a religious delusion. And to think
that one can eliminate God without eliminating man, is a God delusion.
vamadevananda
fiddler
simply an attack due to, to quote you,
"> shows his limited hand and an inability to both think for himself
and
> to think outside the box. "
You have quoted many sources that have far less content and far more
baseless assertion, most of which were simply based on ancient
superstition rather than thought.
As a simple matter, Epicurus is almost poetic in the trueness of this
simple statement and you have no right to demean others for
subscribing to his thoughts or following the reasoning.
fiddler
that, nonsense? You have stated in the past that you do subscribe to
objective morality, this demands that god must have some form of
understandable morality. If you'd like to claim every theistic
religion as false, then yes, I'll agree with you that if there is some
deity he may very well be so different as to have no concept of what
it means to be human and therefore a morality separate from humanity.
But this specifically precludes any religion that claims any form of
command, suggestion, or even insight from a god. If a god can't
understand the most basic form of a humans moral existence, it has no
right to make demands on what we may or may not do in violation of
morality.
fiddler
Lee
So it is NOT okay to demean another for beliving in the thoughts of
somebody whom they may see as great?
Does that strecth to those who feel similar towards Jesus, or Mohamed
I wonder?
Still nice to know that you belive this.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Lee
Explain please.
As to objective morality I belive in no such thing and if you care to
peruse my back postings you will see that born out.
Morality is subjective, and apt to change from era to era, location to
location, and sociaty to sociaty.
And you have it the wrong way around. God does not fail to understand
humaity it is humanity that cannot understand the totality of what God
is.
fiddler
someone for folllowing a valid line of reason. Jebus and mohamed did
not follow reasoning, they (i use the plural although there is no
evidence of one of them ever existing) made declarations of what a
supernatural being told them must be done and other such silliness.
iam deheretic
Allan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
--
(
)
I_D Allan
fiddler
did as well as testimony from contemporaries that he was a paedophile
and gold-digger. His reasoning is not sound in the least because it is
absent. He didn't "reason" god, he claimed to have been commanded by
an angel.
There is no evidence anywhere that jesus existed. No contemporary
mentions him. All of the supposed gospels were written nearly 100
years later by people who never met him -or it seems- each other. No
Roman mentions a preacher walking around occupied territory inciting
people to gather in large groups and to protest the current religious
structure. And yes, these are the types of things that Romans are
famous for recording and dealing decisively with. And again, reasoning
is absent. "My daddy said so" is not reasoning, it is simply a
statement.
> > minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com<minds-eye%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Lee
You said:
'As a simple matter, Epicurus is almost poetic in the trueness of
this
simple statement and you have no right to demean others for
subscribing to his thoughts or following the reasoning'
'Subscribing to his thoughts', is obviously what I'm talking about
here. Take your man of straw over there, yes right there, put him in
that pile and leave him to compost.
fiddler
address it, I'm committing a strawman? I wasn't the one to bring those
people up, you were. The difference between Epicurus and those
religidiots was that they decided to tell people what god wanted and
Epicurus merely followed a line of reasoning that showed the concept
to be false. No strawman is needed to show the silliness of a
"prophet" that tells you what is right and wrong (objectivity itself
is the silly problem there). If you can't grasp the difference between
philosophy, religion, intellect, and strawmen , well...
fiddler
and, if an individual (atheist or not) takes refuge in their limited
views, then he
shows his limited hand and an inability to both think for himself and
to think outside the box.
Lee
You said:
'As a simple matter, Epicurus is almost poetic in the trueness of this
simple statement and you have no right to demean others for
subscribing to his thoughts or following the reasoning'
In my post to which you originaly replied I said:
' So it is NOT okay to demean another for beliving in the thoughts of
somebody whom they may see as great?'
It is clear here that the part I am talking about is in your words
this: '..subscribing to his thoughts..'
Yet your reply to this was all about the second part namely:
'It's about attacking someone for folllowing a valid line of reason'.
I think my words were very clear, I mentioned the word 'Thought', and
made no mention of the word 'Reason'.
So when in reply you attack the part that I made no mention of, what
do we call that?
You have a histroy of demeaning those who belive in the thougts of
relgious leaders, so it came as a great supprise to me when you said
what you did, hence my reply as it was.
So similar to you own method of seeking to demean others, If you can't
read words plainly written and make a proper reply to the points that
are addressed to you, well....
Pat
On 15 Mar, 21:06, fiddler <krinantrem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's not about someone being "great" or not. It's about attacking
> someone for folllowing a valid line of reason.
Epicurus' reasoning was faulty. I can point out exactly where if you
like.
>Jebus and mohamed did
> not follow reasoning, they (i use the plural although there is no
> evidence of one of them ever existing) made declarations of what a
> supernatural being told them must be done and other such silliness.
>
Actually, I don't think either of them viewed God as 'outside of
nature' as is implied by 'supernatural'. Rather, they bothe viewed
God as completely natural, which is what YOU have a problem with. The
problem is yours.
Pat
On 13 Mar, 02:49, fiddler <krinantrem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That is possibly the most limited statement I've heard from you and is
> simply an attack due to, to quote you,
>
> "> shows his limited hand and an inability to both think for himself
> and
>
> > to think outside the box. "
>
> You have quoted many sources that have far less content and far more
> baseless assertion, most of which were simply based on ancient
> superstition rather than thought.
No example. Typical. This IS an ad hominem, but, as it says nothing,
can't be considered as carrying much weight.
> As a simple matter, Epicurus is almost poetic in the trueness of this
> simple statement and you have no right to demean others for
> subscribing to his thoughts or following the reasoning.
>
If Epicurus is such a simple matter, then why has he convinced no
one? There is no 'trueness' to his statements or 'truth', for that
matter. I have every right to point out that his thoughts are
incorrect as was his reasoning.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Pat
On 15 Mar, 21:42, fiddler <krinantrem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I know that mohamed existed, there is plenty of corroboration that he
> did as well as testimony from contemporaries that he was a paedophile
> and gold-digger.
You'll not like the payment for those.
>His reasoning is not sound in the least because it is
> absent. He didn't "reason" god, he claimed to have been commanded by
> an angel.
>
And your proof that he wasn't is...? Absent!
> There is no evidence anywhere that jesus existed. No contemporary
> mentions him. All of the supposed gospels were written nearly 100
> years later by people who never met him -or it seems- each other. No
> Roman mentions a preacher walking around occupied territory inciting
> people to gather in large groups and to protest the current religious
> structure. And yes, these are the types of things that Romans are
> famous for recording and dealing decisively with. And again, reasoning
> is absent. "My daddy said so" is not reasoning, it is simply a
> statement.
>
How likely is it for a religion, like Christianity, to have developed
without the central person ever being extant? Is there a long list
where other such religions have formed and that also proves that their
originators did not exist? I didn't think so. Your stack of cards
doesn't exist.
> > > minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com<minds-eye%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > > .
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > (
> > )
> > I_D Allan- Hide quoted text -
Pat
On 17 Mar, 04:35, fiddler <krinantrem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> also: christ and mohamed weren't as bright as they thought they were
> and, if an individual (atheist or not) takes refuge in their limited
> views, then he
> shows his limited hand and an inability to both think for himself and
> to think outside the box.
>
Yup, which is why I verify things as best I can. My physics is not
'someone else's', so I can think for myself, thank you very much.
Your inability to even bother to write your own words shows you have a
copy-n-paste intellect. That explains the Epicurus' quote, then! ;-)
fiddler
experience that humanity has?
> No example. Typical. This IS an ad hominem, but, as it says nothing,
> can't be considered as carrying much weight.
That is not an ad hom, any religious text you've quoted falls under
the category.
I never said you had no right to disagree or point out what you view
as a fault.
> > "> shows his limited hand and an inability to both think for himself
> > and> > > to think outside the box. "
This was an attack by you though. Perhaps if you stop worshipping a
paedophile you will get the gist of it. See how that works? Enter your
groupie I'll bet...
On Mar 22, 4:27 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 Mar, 02:49, fiddler <krinantrem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > That is possibly the most limited statement I've heard from you and is
> > simply an attack due to, to quote you,
>
>
> > You have quoted many sources that have far less content and far more
> > baseless assertion, most of which were simply based on ancient
> > superstition rather than thought.
>
>