Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526
Results 251 to 257 of 257

Thread: The God Zoo

  1. Top | #251
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,993
    Rep Power
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by James Brown View Post

    That's not what you said. You said, "He does act. Immediately? No, not always. But He always does and He will.

    [FONT=Verdana][COLOR=#333333]So I'll ask again, this time with clarity. How do you know God will always act at some point in the future? I assume you don't claim perfect clairvoyance into the murky future. Is this an act of faith on your part?
    Premise 1a - a truthful person with the unlimited ability to do what they say they will do...
    Premise 1b - ...says they will act to punish unrepentant sinners
    Conclusion - therefore they will act.

    Does God do his part to prevent murders?
    Yes

    I think we can leave the discussion about the proper definition of atheism for another thread.
    A-theism is form of theism

    ...is it your position that (atheist) parents would not guard their children from needless suffering if they had the power or the knowledge to do so?
    Yes. Thats my position.
    Atheist parents could prevent the suffering of their children - by not having children.
    And yet they do.
    So as far as theodicy goes, those parents either dont love their children or they do love them and have a sufficiently moral reason to justify their act of allowing such suffering to eventuate. (Kid falls over in the playground..kid suffers...what does a loving parent do? Ban their child from ever playing on any playground equipment?)

  2. Top | #252
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,403
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,459
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    The conditions of the world produces all sorts of creatures, some are killers others are prey. Humans have a range of attributes and behaviours, some are kind hearted and generous others selfish and mean, and probably every combination between.
    Did you seperate humans from the killers and prey sentence for some particular reason? Humans don't find anything shocking about animals hunting their prey and they would hate other humans to interfer with the natural way of the world.

    Yes I concur, humans have a whole range of attributes and behaviours, which is possible to change by a whole range of affecting influences.

    A psychopath may have no qualms in killing someone, maybe gets pleasure out of it and sleeps like a baby afterwards. The brain of a psychopath is wired differently, they have little or no empathy.

    Nor does anyone choose to be a psychopath.
    People are called psycopaths if they cause harm or they express their viewpoints about how they want to see done to other people. Hitler who was called a psycopath was capable of love ...to love his own and those who agree with him.

    People who have no empathy or feelings who may also be "wired" differently can still live in the world and follow rules. They can intellectually understand even without any 'empathic feelings' that it would not be in their interest to cause harm to others, also understanding that there is NO reason to cause harm.

    It's strange thinking about it now - people can get used to killing people who would not normally classify as psycopathic in their usual 'normal' everyday life circumstances.

    Your God could, for instance, correct any imbalances in the brain from birth to enable empathy and balanced thought, thereby preventing a whole lot of suffering.
    God has His reasons imo which you don't agree with.. I think God has faith many 'normal' people don't have to behave like psycopaths even though some do.
    Last edited by Learner; Today at 12:02 PM.

  3. Top | #253
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,075
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    8,919
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post

    Premise 1a - a truthful person with the unlimited ability to do what they say they will do...
    Premise 1b - ...says they will act to punish unrepentant sinners
    Conclusion - therefore they will act.
    Well, that sounds like faith. You take it as a matter of faith that A) God is truthful, B) that he has an unlimited ability to act, and C) he will perform some hoped-for action sometime in the future, either in this life or in the next one (assuming there is one--another tenet of faith.)

    One could say the same thing about my neighbor Bob. He's truthful--I've never heard him tell a lie. He says he can do anything he puts his mind to--and I have no reason to disbelieve him because I've seen him do a lot of things. And Bob told me that one day he will discover the cure for cancer. What should we conclude from that?


    ...is it your position that (atheist) parents would not guard their children from needless suffering if they had the power or the knowledge to do so?
    Yes. Thats my position.
    Atheist parents could prevent the suffering of their children - by not having children.
    And yet they do.
    So as far as theodicy goes, those parents either dont love their children or they do love them and have a sufficiently moral reason to justify their act of allowing such suffering to eventuate. (Kid falls over in the playground..kid suffers...what does a loving parent do? Ban their child from ever playing on any playground equipment?)
    I said needless suffering. Falling over in a playground almost likely won't bring lifelong hardship. Letting a child chase a ball into traffic certainly will. I notice that all parents--atheist or otherwise--won't allow a child to run into traffic, even going so far as snatching the child out of harm's way--a clear violation of the child's free will.

    But God will let a child run into traffic. Can you explain why?

  4. Top | #254
    Contributor Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    5,284
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    9,168
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post

    Did you seperate humans from the killers and prey sentence for some particular reason? Humans don't find anything shocking about animals hunting their prey and they would hate other humans to interfer with the natural way of the world.
    Genesis 1
    30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every
    thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every
    green herb for meat: and it was so.

    Isaiah 11
    6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with
    the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little
    child shall lead them.
    7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together:
    and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
    8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child
    shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
    9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be
    full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

    If God, being omnipotent, can eliminate predation, and the Bible tells us he can do so and will do so, but God does not, then predation is shocking, demonstrating God is cruel and sadistic.

    Hey God! Do something! Save the cute puppies, kittens, and lovable baby bunnies!
    Cheerful Charlie

  5. Top | #255
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,876
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,782
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post

    Did you seperate humans from the killers and prey sentence for some particular reason?
    Role and function in the natural envronment. Humans may be predator and prey.


    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Humans don't find anything shocking about animals hunting their prey and they would hate other humans to interfer with the natural way of the world.
    The issue is not about what humans do or do not find shocking. We are an inseparable part of the natural world, a set of conditions that shapes us, our minds, thoughts and behaviour. We respond according to our own condition, physical and mental in relation to the conditions of our environment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Yes I concur, humans have a whole range of attributes and behaviours, which is possible to change by a whole range of affecting influences.
    Change happens, different people have different ideas on what course to take, government, economy, religion, ideology, etc, and this itself is a source of conflict.


    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    People are called psycopaths if they cause harm or they express their viewpoints about how they want to see done to other people. Hitler who was called a psycopath was capable of love ...to love his own and those who agree with him.
    So?

    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    People who have no empathy or feelings who may also be "wired" differently can still live in the world and follow rules. They can intellectually understand even without any 'empathic feelings' that it would not be in their interest to cause harm to others, also understanding that there is NO reason to cause harm.
    A lack of empathy, amongst other brain conditions, has consequences regardless of intellect:


    On the neurology of morals
    ''Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.''

    Prefrontal Cortex damage:

    ''The 20-year-old female subject studied by Damasio et al. was intelligent and academically competent, but she stole from her family and other children, abused other people both verbally and physically, lied frequently, and was sexually promiscuous and completely lacking in empathy toward her illegitimate child. In addition, the researchers say, "She never expressed guilt or remorse for her misbehavior'' ''Both of the subjects performed well on measures of intellectual ability, but, like people with adult-onset prefrontal cortex damage, they were socially impaired, failed to consider future consequences when making decisions, and failed to respond normally to punishment or behavioral interventions. "Unlike adult-onset patients, however," the researchers say, "the two patients had defective social and moral reasoning, suggesting that the acquisition of complex social conventions and moral rules had been impaired." While adult-onset patients possess factual knowledge about social and moral rules (even though they often cannot follow these rules in real life), Damasio et al.'s childhood-onset subjects appeared unable to learn these rules at all. This may explain, the researchers say, why their childhood-onset subjects were much more antisocial, and showed less guilt and remorse, than subjects who suffered similar damage in adulthood.''


    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    God has His reasons imo which you don't agree with.. I think God has faith many 'normal' people don't have to behave like psycopaths even though some do.
    It's not a matter of what I 'agree with' but the relationship between one set of values and another set values. The bible itself describes what its God values in terms of morality, yet the bible itself describes God trampling all over these very same values...which presents a contradiction. There lies the problem.

  6. Top | #256
    Contributor Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    5,284
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    9,168
    Rep Power
    60
    In Plato's "Laws - Book X", Plato list arguments to believe in God aimed squarely at atheists.

    One of them is what I call "The Good Workman Theory". We judge a good workman by his ability to finish a job and to do that job competently. Plato states that God would be a very good workman, and would never leave a job undone or poorly done. So if a person is good and innocent, but suffers in this life, it is not because god is doing a poor job. In a future life, god, being a good workman" will make things right, finish the job. Of course the fact is innocent and good people have bad things happen to them. but the idea that God will make things alright in a future life is wishful thinking. It most certainly is not a proof God exists. and besides, if God can't do a job properly in this life, why would we expect in a future life he will do any better? Wishful thinking. Half-assed theorizing. And the fact God often does not help in this life strongly suggests God does not exist.

    Tired old theological arguments never die.
    Cheerful Charlie

  7. Top | #257
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    6,086
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    11,125
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    In Plato's "Laws - Book X", Plato list arguments to believe in God aimed squarely at atheists.

    One of them is what I call "The Good Workman Theory". We judge a good workman by his ability to finish a job and to do that job competently. Plato states that God would be a very good workman, and would never leave a job undone or poorly done. So if a person is good and innocent, but suffers in this life, it is not because god is doing a poor job. In a future life, god, being a good workman" will make things right, finish the job. Of course the fact is innocent and good people have bad things happen to them. but the idea that God will make things alright in a future life is wishful thinking. It most certainly is not a proof God exists. and besides, if God can't do a job properly in this life, why would we expect in a future life he will do any better? Wishful thinking. Half-assed theorizing. And the fact God often does not help in this life strongly suggests God does not exist.

    Tired old theological arguments never die.
    They're emotional arguments, not rational arguments. Is it any different than hoping Santa will bring you more and better presents next year? Placing one's hopes in soap opera, magical creatures that live in space isn't much of a plan for life.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •