So you can't invalidate the "concept" of God by refuting any of these particular versions any more than you refute the concept of "atom" by refuting Democritus — Pantagruel
That's the second reason not to believe in gods. Whether they're as powerful as the believers claim or not, they're not worthy of praise. I can't worship anyone who fails to meet my standard of morality.The botched and imperfect world we live in, full of design flaws and disease also seems to indicate sloppy work. And the fact that a god would design an animal kingdom where predation, torment and suffering are a constant necessity for most species to eat, suggests a love of cruelty or more sloppy work. — Tom Storm
Practicing a religion could gain you divine favor in the afterlife.
However, atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, and therefore it is irrational to hold atheist beliefs. — Scarecow
The botched and imperfect world we live in, full of design flaws and disease also seems to indicate sloppy work. — Tom Storm
With this simple sentence, you've put yourself in the "God" position. You've now judged God and thus assumed the role that you know better about how run the universe. — BitconnectCarlos
I mean, you're free place yourself in the "God" role but I wouldn't. :wink: — BitconnectCarlos
But I would say that I (and most members here, probably you too) are morally superior to the Old Testament god — Tom Storm
Let's just start with the flood. God presumably kills a large portion of humanity. Was he wrong to do that? You presume that you know better. I admit that I don't know. That's the difference here. — BitconnectCarlos
You say that you know better. That's really the fundamental difference. So how much life should everyone have? I understand that to us floods/natural disasters look bad but we also just don't know anything about the bigger picture. — BitconnectCarlos
No, the difference is that I accept that the mass murder by drowning of men, women and children is wrong. — Tom Storm
just like the Muslims do. — Tom Storm
And we weren't talking about 'natural' disasters we were talking about god created ones. — Tom Storm
No, just the tiny corner of it that we can see and experience. When your car stalls and you have to pull off to the shoulder, you can't help knowing that's not supposed to happen, even though you're not qualified to design car engines.With this simple sentence, you've put yourself in the "God" position. You've now judged God and thus assumed the role that you know better about how run the universe. — BitconnectCarlos
The people, probably. The animals, definitely.et's just start with the flood. God presumably kills a large portion of humanity. Was he wrong to do that? — BitconnectCarlos
God does whatever he bloody well likes. That doesn't make it right by human standards. And it's the humans are expected to do all the praising and adoring. Can they, in good conscience?Religious people say God will give and take life as he does. — BitconnectCarlos
Killing willy-nilly is the least serious indictment. It's all the suffering inflicted on innocents who know nothing of good and evil that I can't forgive any sentient entity who did it. The bigger picture doesn't come into it: if the god is omnipotent, he has the power to reduce the horror in each pixel.So how much life should everyone have? — BitconnectCarlos
The botched and imperfect world we live in, full of design flaws and disease also seems to indicate sloppy work. — Tom Storm
In order to always have a secure compass in hand so as to find one's way in life, and to see life always in the correct light without going astray, nothing is more suitable than getting used to seeing the world as something like a penal colony. This view finds its...justification not only in my philosophy, but also in the wisdom of all times, namely, in Brahmanism, Buddhism, Empedocles, Pythagoras [...] Even in genuine and correctly understood Christianity, our existence is regarded as the result of a liability or a misstep. ... We will thus always keep our position in mind and regard every human, first and foremost, as a being that exists only on account of sinfulness, and who's life is an expiation of the offence committed through birth. Exactly this constitutes what Christianity calls the sinful nature of man. — Schopenhauer's Compass, Urs App
When your car stalls and you have to pull off to the shoulder, you can't help knowing that's not supposed to happen — Vera Mont
The people, probably. The animals, definitely. — Vera Mont
Can they, in good conscience? — Vera Mont
if the god is omnipotent, he has the power to reduce the horror in each pixel. — Vera Mont
No, we say that about a world full of blindness, leukemia and leeches.Yes, that's a car -- not a human. We don't say that about someone who is deaf or blind. — BitconnectCarlos
It's not about quantity. It's about punishing them for the perceived iniquity of one tribe of humans.How much life do they deserve? Should such a life also be pain free? — BitconnectCarlos
No, not for me! Pain cannot be the most wonderful thing to happen to any feeling entity. Faith may be able to find an excuse for any amount of cruelty; reason cannot.That is faith for you. — BitconnectCarlos
What other standards are there? If somebody wants my admiration, they have to earn it.Nor can God be judged by human standards. — BitconnectCarlos
Faith can find an excuse for any amount of cruelty; reason cannot.He could, but maybe the suffering is for a purpose. — BitconnectCarlos
:fire: Yes yes – a minimally moral (i.e. empathic-benevolent) person, who knows a child is on the verge of being raped and also has the power to prevent it, would do so whereas "Almighty God" does not prevent child-rapes (e.g. priests) – wholly unworthy of worship. Such a deity is either a sadist or a fiction.I can't worship anyone who fails to meet my standard of morality. — Vera Mont
:100: :up:I would say that I (and most members here, probably you too) are morally superior to the Old Testament god (at least the character as written) who endorses slavery and commits mass murder ... — Tom Storm
Theodicy is a top-down, otherworldly, inhuman/unnatural excuse – ex post facto rationalization – for 'divinely permitted' evil in this world. In other words, it's superstitious bullshit. :death:maybe the suffering is for a purpose — BitconnectCarlos
:clap: :flower: :hearts:Faith can find an excuse for any amount of cruelty; reason cannot. — Vera Mont
Always seemed to me that there was never an expectation in Christianity that 'the world' could be other than a 'vale of tears'. — Wayfarer
Whereas because there's no conception of that in secular culture, we expect earthly existence to be as perfect as possible, and then blame the God we don't believe in for spoiling it. — Wayfarer
Whereas because there's no conception of that in secular culture, we expect earthly existence to be as perfect as possible, and then blame the God we don't believe in for spoiling it. — Wayfarer
Theodicy is a top-down, otherworldly, inhuman/unnatural excuse – ex post facto rationalization – for 'divinely permitted' evil in this world. In other words, it's superstitious bullshit. :death: — 180 Proof
Yes, ritualized reality-denial. Which is why I define "faith" as believing in the unbelievable in order to defend the indefensible and excuse the inexcusable.And what's truly dispiriting is the awful tap dance believers will do to justify the unjustifiable. This must be what they mean when they say religion is nihilism. — Tom Storm
That's the second reason not to believe in gods. Whether they're as powerful as the believers claim or not, they're not worthy of praise. I can't worship anyone who fails to meet my standard of morality. — Vera Mont
No, we say that about a world full of blindness, leukemia and leeches. — Vera Mont
It's not about quantity. It's about punishing them for the perceived iniquity of one tribe of humans. — Vera Mont
Faith may be able to find an excuse for any amount of cruelty; reason cannot. — Vera Mont
What other standards are there? If somebody wants my admiration, they have to earn it. — Vera Mont
So are you rejecting the concept of god that you perceive as being advocated in the world around you, or are you rejecting the most reasonable concept of god that you yourself have been able to formulate? — Pantagruel
We've done a bang-up job so far!Maybe it's our job to elevate it. — BitconnectCarlos
That's what I'm doing and I consider myself lucky, so YES. Have you ever drowned?Would it be better for them to die slowly of old age? — BitconnectCarlos
Bull. Shit.Some pain can be cleansing. Some pain can be justice. Some can be necessary. Some can be for growth. — BitconnectCarlos
By whose definition? Are you at all familiar with criminal codes?It is him taking life - murder, right? — BitconnectCarlos
By rejecting him.How do we judge the giver and taker of life according to human standards who operates outside of nature? — BitconnectCarlos
I have not formulated a reasonable concept of god — Vera Mont
It's theoretically possible, but I have not encountered it in god-related literature.Do you think that other people with different experiences might be capable of forming such a concept? — Pantagruel
Well, I dropped some acid in my youth, but all I saw was the Void looking back at me.Perhaps you lack the relevant experiences or abilities? — Pantagruel
Bull. Shit. — Vera Mont
How do we judge the giver and taker of life according to human standards who operates outside of nature? — BitconnectCarlos
Well, I dropped some acid in my youth, but all I saw was the Void looking back at me. — Vera Mont
Can be this, can be that... are not valid reasons for a loving god to torture the innocent.Swathes of pains are beneficial for various reasons. — AmadeusD
Its completely impossible to reconcile it with anything we know about suffering and death. — AmadeusD
Remove God and life can lose its sanctity quickly. — BitconnectCarlos
Does mysticism really mean lesser than true? — Barkon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.