You said it was the same as believing in god (it’s not, as it’s based on evidence), and that it’s non-falsifiable (it’s not, because if new evidence was brought forward it would be falsified). That is definitely not the same as what @mnben87 and I have been saying.
You site evidence of prayer response and intense study. That does not equate to evidence of phenomena we can observe in the universe.
I don’t think I equated the two, it was the response to “Why pick” asked of me.
The problem I have with this article is that it addresses only First World suffering, using as prime example the suffering of a godly woman who develops cancer, whose family will undoubtedly be inundated by casseroles.
What of the sensitive, intellectually gifted girl who came onto my caseload at age 13? The many-inches-thick chart was started when she was a newborn. Her mother wasn’t feelin’ it, apparently, so gave the baby to a neighbor. Did the neighbor feed the baby? I don’t know. What I do know is that the baby was taken to the hospital because she was dying, and was identified as a “failure to thrive.” Social services got pulled in, which prompted the chart to be started. The mother was given parenting classes. Over time it chronicled molestation and other abuses, homelessness…just every kind of violation of spirit. That kid would be thriving - she found and married a man with a library card - but she has very early onset Multiple Sclerosis, so will probably be wheelchair-bound by age 30. What sin accounts for this? A girl with integrity, a hard worker, a kid who once pulled lice out of a classmate’s hair when she found her crying in the nurse’s office “because I know how it feels.” We could look to her mother’s sins, but she’s developmentally delayed, has her own abuse history, etc.
It’s hard for me to accept that depending upon time and place, people are born into the kind of degradation and poverty that many middle class churchgoers are blithely unaware exists. The good and godly German Christian is praying for relief from an arthritis flare while the Jews starve to death, naked and beaten, in the camps.
I would like to believe wholeheartedly rather than vaguely and conditionally, but these things make it challenging. This song came to mind when I read your article.
You bring up good points and I agree it only points to first world suffering. I am sure you have seen many more cases than I have that make it a lot more difficult (as you stated) to believe.
I can’t offer an explanation as to why that young woman has had to suffer so much. I don’t buy into the “sins of the father/mother” causing anguish theory either.
You kind of alluded to a point of contention I have with the church and many of the “missions” trips they endorse. Upper middle class folks go on these trips to poverty stricken areas and spend a week loving on kids who may or may not know love from their upbringing. Than they go home and feel like they have accomplished something and feel good about being good blessed Christians. But, there is a growing body of evidence that trips like these that interact with young (<7 years old or so) children and than promptly leave to never return causes psychological trauma and abandonment issues to arise. So, the church mission accomplished exactly the opposite of what it promised to do (help those in need). I think this is one area where the modern church must do better in light of this evidence. The trip ends up being about those who went, not those who needed help. It is quite frustrating.
Surely you know the difference between a discussion and a debate, polo. Should we debate on the difference on the two words? I have my dictionary loaded and ready.
Surely I do … Surely you do know this topic would lead to debate? Surely you understand that the people commenting would seek debate? Surely you don’t think you can dictate how any thread will evolve. You’re not God you know 
Well, I mean I gave you the DEFINITION of survival of the fittest as it’s commonly understood. Nature is now, and always has been, a function of haves and have nots. Survival of the fittest is just a phrase to describe natural order.
Beyond that, you obviously won’t have a way to defend this statement, as I haven’t given you my opinion on anything. I was merely asking your views and how you defined them.
Fairly defensive, no? I obviously didn’t ask for a debate either? Hell I haven’t even given you my opinion. We could agree completely and I’m just asking for your rationale.
Literal survival is ALWAYS a power struggle. EVERY species of everything is constantly fighting for control. That’s life.
This is wrong. You could at least use google if you’re going to challenge a widely accepted definition.
Dictionary
survival of the fittest
phrase of survival
BIOLOGY
the continued existence of organisms which are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution.
While having babies is obviously an aspect of survival of the fittest, the much larger aspect is the ability to adapt to the surroundings and control your own survival better than others.
Ants have way more babies than we do. I wouldn’t call them the more fit species, would you?
That would hold up in a lot of scenarios. Obviously not necessarily in war/violence/random acts, but in a vacuum, rich humans tend to be above poor humans on the totem poll.
Anyway, you seem to have got awful heated & defensive over a simple back and forth about your own beliefs on how the concept of evil works (with none of mine thrown in, save the dictionary one). I can’t imagine what’d it’d be like if we actually had a debate. Have a good one.
edit:
This is double funny now. I swear I didn’t read this til after I posted.
This is like.,.the one singular topic that you’re supposed to avoid if you want to keep things chill.
I figured you were a disgruntled Jewish kid who refused to go to synagogue yesterday because contemplation of your sins against man and G-d is a rather bleak prospect.
Heck of a coincidence, as it turns out.
Almost miraculous.
Not to derail the thread, but, yes biologically speaking ants are as fit as humans.
In fact, basically anything alive today that is not affirmatively dying off is equally fit under the biological definition.
It’s literally just about having babies that thrive. Very limited definition. Not to be confused with the “Star Trek” definition of evolutionary fitness, which means “closest to turning into a peaceful ball of light and knowledge that explores the universe and time.”
I assumed that genocide and mass murder were not part of your value system.
Should I meet God at the part where he murders the first born in Egypt, orders genocide, denies women equal rights, approves of slavery, outlaws free speech…?
As the creator does he not also get to be the destroyer if He desires (Sodom and Gamorah, the flood, Egypt etc…)? I am okay if He wipes out the Earth in the next ten minutes if He so chooses.
You are picking and choosing which parts you want to focus on just as much as you accused me of doing so. What civilization in the History of mankind has not warred with another at some point in time?
Perhaps it’s depressing but it’s also not feeling like I need to believe something just to make it better. I mean I suppose it would be better if I believed that when I died the tv only played Chiefs victory’s, I celebrated with deceased loved ones, etc. But I can’t make myself believe something that I don’t think is true.
I don’t have a problem feeling like I have meaning here and “knowing” God wouldn’t change that. I’d do the same things I’m doing now. As for eternally well sure that sounds good. But if it’s not actually real it doesn’t do anything for me eternally.
If God created me and wanted me to believe in him why did he give me tools that would cause me to doubt his existence? He left a really old book who no one agrees on and a ton of other people who say that’s not the right book. Or the right way to look at the book.
If he sent an invitation he didn’t give a location, directions, and he lead me to believe the party has been cancelled.
I suppose I will be tortured in a lake of fire or something by that all loving being according to many.
Yes, but I leave room for that the 15-year-old girl picking lice out of another girl’s hair - not a close friend, just an acquaintance - is the kind of grace that points to yes. But again, I struggle to decide how I feel. What I think and what I believe are even more difficult to ascertain.
I think there’s a great deal of that in organized religion, which is why it gets the side eye from me. But there is certainly no denying that as they have done great harm, so have they done great good.
Which is why I was flabbergasted
You describe the problem of divine hiddeness. I don’t see an issue with God reveling himself. There would still be a choice to worship God. Satan in the Bible is an example of knowing but not worshipping.
If I knew God existed then it would be a different story of course. Although I’m not sure I could worship someone who was all powerful and let people be punished for eternity simply for not kissing his rings.
In fairness, that lines up well with Hobbes’ social contract.
Perhaps we would be bound by that who knows. But I have a hard time being convinced someone can be all loving and all powerful and be fine with eternal torture if one didn’t worship them.
Just the way I see it. Much like the God question I have no clue if I’m right.