Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
821

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I wasn’t trying to disparage the tilma…it was your own quote that referenced it as an apron.

My point is that religious people sometimes use pseudo science to bolster their supernatural claims, but inevitably when you test their claims in a controlled scientific setting they prove false. Any attempts to conduct these studies are dismissed as sacrilegious, as if their god is offended by actual proof and instead insists on faith, which is belief without proof.

Is it any wonder that faith gets such high billing in the religious world? Imagine what would happen if the tilma was actually tested in a controlled setting, and proved to be destructible like any other piece of cloth.

Take a step back and think for a minute. Science is based on the principle of repeatability. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested and replicated by an objective observer is useless, because it cannot be reliably confirmed or disconfirmed.

You may be firm in your religious beliefs, and unwilling to question whether they are grounded in reality. Just in case though, I highly recommend reading “Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. He discusses these cognitive fallacies and the (imperfect but preferable) protection science offers from them. [/quote]

Nobody ever claimed it was indestructible!!!

Why latch onto this?

A bomb blew up beneath it. Everything around it got all blown up, too. Only the tilma, located directly above the bomb, was unharmed.

Pretty cool story? Not for atheists, apparently. I don’t have a problem with this in itself, just please stop implying that I or anyone else ever even suggested that the tilma could be used as a bullet proof vest. I understand your point. You are making it under false pretenses.
[/quote]

My point is that your story about the tilma surviving a bomb blast means zilch unless there is scientific confirmation that it enjoys some level of divine protection. These stories are rampant, whether about appearances of the virgin Mary or alien encounters or being visited by one of the three Nephites, but lacking scientific verification, they are only stories with no bearing on objective reality.

Faith is a lame excuse for lack of evidence.[/quote]

Yes it is, but of course you have anti-faith against something we don’t believe in. It survived a bomb-blast, supposedly, and you want to wrap a stick of dynamite in it. Like I said, if you don’t see the illogicality in this you lack common sense.

822

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
God from all eternity did render the dawn, existence and progress of evil utterly and unavoidably certain whilst remaining entirely free from it’s production, guilt or the temptation thereunto.
[/quote]

Nothing existed before God, then He created everything. Including evil.

823

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
God from all eternity did render the dawn, existence and progress of evil utterly and unavoidably certain whilst remaining entirely free from it’s production, guilt or the temptation thereunto.
[/quote]

Nothing existed before God, then He created everything. Including evil.[/quote]

What’s interesting is that I used to accept and agree with the notion that god created evil. I used to actually believe that god just plain hated some people, was jealous, flawed and quite imperfect.

The thing that kept me tethered was this idea that he was simply capable of harming me more than I was capable of harming him. I know that doesn’t make for a particularly pleasant god, but it kept me “in line” and so I worshipped.

Of course, it doesn’t sound like a particularly desirable god, but at least this way there wasn’t any inconsistency in my conception of god.

Ah, those were the days.

824

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Here’s the problem, though; Does god care if you are pleasing to him?[/quote]

The God of my faith, yes. Anyone else’s and you’d have to ask them.[/quote]

So, there still is causation here.

Unless I’m mistaken, the only way that your God could not be responsible for the existence of evil is if it existed independent of him… which again undermines his omnipotence

825

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
God from all eternity did render the dawn, existence and progress of evil utterly and unavoidably certain whilst remaining entirely free from it’s production, guilt or the temptation thereunto.
[/quote]

Nothing existed before God, then He created everything. Including evil.[/quote]

What’s interesting is that I used to accept and agree with the notion that god created evil. I used to actually believe that god just plain hated some people, was jealous, flawed and quite imperfect.

The thing that kept me tethered was this idea that he was simply capable of harming me more than I was capable of harming him. I know that doesn’t make for a particularly pleasant god, but it kept me “in line” and so I worshipped.

Of course, it doesn’t sound like a particularly desirable god, but at least this way there wasn’t any inconsistency in my conception of god.

Ah, those were the days.[/quote]

It sounds like you have a problem with the sovereignty of God. Many who rebel against God have this problem. Others just simply do not like the various Christian rules and prefer to make up their own rules as they go along because it suits a certain lifestyle.

What is sovereignty? “One who exercises supreme, permanent authority. Self-governing, independent, having supreme rank or power, complete independence, the right to exercise supreme power and dominion.”

This is difficult for many to accept as we live in an age when we think we know just about everything that there is to know and do not want anyone, or anything to tell us how to live. Or to have power over us.

Anyway, God is the absolute authority, it is Gods domain to do what he likes with his creation. You are right to say that God is capable of harming you and you are incapable of harming him. Why? Because he is sovereign and you and I are simply mortal.

We can choose to have a rebellious spirit as he gave us free will. Just as we can choose to turn off a light and choose darkness.

Psalm 103:19 “His Sovereignty rules over all”

Do not choose to be like those who have rebelled. This is a serious choice which will separate you from God for all eternity. You will be grouped for eternity with all others who chose to wrong path.

826

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Unless I’m mistaken, the only way that your God could not be responsible for the existence of evil is if it existed independent of him… which again undermines his omnipotence
[/quote]

See my earlier post. This is an absurd idea, God or not.

827

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Nothing existed before God, then He created everything. Including evil.[/quote]

If by created, you mean in the same way we create the evil of rape by defining it as unlawful…yeah, I guess.

828

It’s funny how the atheists stepped up and finally demonstrated they have no morality. Their argument is that we shouldn’t describe or declare anything evil so that there won’t be evil. Riiight.
Also, apparently they’re luddites who wish to reverse scientific thought and knowledge. They don’t want to be “responsible” for the evil that can come from knowledge.

829

Are you referring to this one?

If evil only exists inasmuch as it is defined by God, then please explain how God is not responsible for it?

Another way of looking at it - God makes the choices of determining what is and isn’t pleasing to him. If he chose that all things would be pleasing to him, then evil would not exist.

If your god does not possess this ability… if he cannot master his emotions, he is by definition not omnipotent.

830

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s funny how the atheists stepped up and finally demonstrated they have no morality. Their argument is that we shouldn’t describe or declare anything evil so that there won’t be evil. Riiight.
Also, apparently they’re luddites who wish to reverse scientific thought and knowledge. They don’t want to be “responsible” for the evil that can come from knowledge.
[/quote]

Speaking for myself here… don’t put words into my mouth.

I am merely following through the logic of your definition of evil.

831

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

I am merely following through the logic of your definition of evil. [/quote]

No, you’re not. Observe…

832

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Another way of looking at it - God makes the choices of determining what is and isn’t pleasing to him. If he chose that all things would be pleasing to him, then evil would not exist.

If your god does not possess this ability… if he cannot master his emotions, he is by definition not omnipotent. [/quote]

Sure…unless he chooses not to. What you’ve done is insist that an omnipotent being must CHOOSE in a way that is convenient to your argument.

833

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Another way of looking at it - God makes the choices of determining what is and isn’t pleasing to him. If he chose that all things would be pleasing to him, then evil would not exist.

[/quote]

To be consistent, you then refuse to see rape as evil? I’m telling you guys, you picked the wrong line of argument.

834

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Another way of looking at it - God makes the choices of determining what is and isn’t pleasing to him. If he chose that all things would be pleasing to him, then evil would not exist.

If your god does not possess this ability… if he cannot master his emotions, he is by definition not omnipotent. [/quote]

Sure…unless he chooses not to. What you’ve done is insist that an omnipotent being must CHOOSE in a way that is convienent to your argument.

[/quote]

I’m not at all saying that an omnipotent being should choose in a way that is convenient to my argument.

Whatever the choice; mastering his emotions, not mastering his emotions, being pleased by everything or being displeased by some - He is responsible for the choice. If the choice defines evil, then he is responsible for evil.

If evil is outside of his ability to choose, then he is not omnipotent.

835

Swole, were the actions of the Boston Strangler evil (if you’re uncomfortable with the word, ‘wrong’ will suffice)?

836

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Another way of looking at it - God makes the choices of determining what is and isn’t pleasing to him. If he chose that all things would be pleasing to him, then evil would not exist.

[/quote]

To be consistent, you then refuse to see rape as evil? I’m telling you guys, you picked the wrong line of argument.[/quote]

Sloth, please accept that I am telling you the truth here: What I am doing in this line of argument is assailing your logic. I am not attempting to advance my theory.

I have effectively moved that function to the Catholic Vs. Protestant thread.

837

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Whatever the choice…

…If the choice defines evil…

…then he is responsible for evil.

[/quote]

So, can I take it you refuse to determine between good and evil acts, such as put foward in my question about the Boston Strangler?

838

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Swole, were the actions of the Boston Strangler evil (if you’re uncomfortable with the word, ‘wrong’ will suffice)?[/quote]

We are not talking here about my definition of evil or wrong.

839

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Swole, were the actions of the Boston Strangler evil (if you’re uncomfortable with the word, ‘wrong’ will suffice)?[/quote]

We are not talking here about my definition of evil or wrong. [/quote]

Answer the question.

840

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Whatever the choice…

…If the choice defines evil…

…then he is responsible for evil.

[/quote]

So, can I take it you refuse to determine between good and evil acts, such as put foward in my question about the Boston Strangler?[/quote]

I don’t claim to be omnipotent!