The god of suffering

[Shaker]

I couldn't agree more Shaker.  The problem seems to be that both sides of the debate are wielding it

Examples?

which, when we are discussing something that can't be proved or otherwise by mere naturalistic means, seems a tad daft.

What other means do you propose there are?

Like you'll ever answer 

[Gordon]

I couldn't agree more Shaker.  The problem seems to be that both sides of the debate are wielding it which, when we are discussing something that can't be proved or otherwise by mere naturalistic means, seems a tad daft.

I'd have thought the 'daft' position is held by those who decry methodological naturalism, such as yourself, who, when asked, can't provide any alternative means (although they are dab hands when it comes to peddling fallacies). 

[Shaker]

I'd have thought the 'daft' position is held by those who decry methodological naturalism, such as yourself, who, when asked, can't provide any alternative means (although they are dab hands when it comes to peddling fallacies).

Post of the month! 

[Walter]

I couldn't agree more Shaker.  The problem seems to be that both sides of the debate are wielding it which, when we are discussing something that can't be proved or otherwise by mere naturalistic means, seems a tad daft.

Hope

there is NO DEBATE. because you cant produce anything  of any value worth debating. Why do you not understand this ?

[Hope]

Hope

there is NO DEBATE. because you cant produce anything  of any value worth debating. Why do you not understand this ?

Well, if that was the case, Walter, I doubt that the likes of Jim and I would be here, because there is seldom anything worth debating from folk like you.  Rather, there is assertion that has no solid evidence - and I, for one, am partly here to challenge such baseless assertion.  Thankfully, there are some others who speak from a similar POV as you, with whom debate is possible.

[floo]

Well, if that was the case, Walter, I doubt that the likes of Jim and I would be here, because there is seldom anything worth debating from folk like you.  Rather, there is assertion that has no solid evidence - and I, for one, am partly here to challenge such baseless assertion.  Thankfully, there are some others who speak from a similar POV as you, with whom debate is possible.

Hope as all your faith assertions are baseless that is the pot calling the kettle black.

[Walter]

Hope as all your faith assertions are baseless that is the pot calling the kettle black.

put quite simply Floo, he does not understand , so I don't push him too hard on it.

[Shaker]

Rather, there is assertion that has no solid evidence

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13161.msg654290#msg654290

God created freewill. God created perfection, but as we all know perfection automatically requires the opposite to come into being for the idea to make any sense, and without making humans as robots, that had to be an possible consequence of creation.  Ironically, God even built means of mitigating the impact of evil into the whole system.

Assertion that has no solid evidence in action.

[floo]

The excuse that god supposedly created free will so it is the fault of humans if they suffer is pretty sick. If god created human nature it knew exactly what the outcome would be, so no excuses can be made for god's role in suffering.

[Hope]

The excuse that god supposedly created free will so it is the fault of humans if they suffer is pretty sick. If god created human nature it knew exactly what the outcome would be, so no excuses can be made for god's role in suffering.

No less sick than your suggestion that everything is the fault of God, therefore letting humans off responsibility for all the depravity and horror we read/hear about in our daily media.  Your claim also seem to fly in the face of your oft-repeated mantra that people ought to take full responsibility for their 'bad' actions.  I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.

[floo]

No less sick than your suggestion that everything is the fault of God, therefore letting humans off responsibility for all the depravity and horror we read/hear about in our daily media.  Your claim also seem to fly in the face of your oft-repeated mantra that people ought to take full responsibility for their 'bad' actions.  I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.

GOD CREATED DEPRAVITY AND HORROR. Many of the actions attributed to that psycho are depraved and horrific, the flood for instance!

[Shaker]

No less sick than your suggestion that everything is the fault of God

Floo doesn't believe in a god - her argument is directed at those who do.

There's a difference, which either through ignorance or deliberate dishonesty is frequently elided.

[Hope]

Floo doesn't believe in a god - her argument is directed at those who do.

There's a difference, which either through ignorance or deliberate dishonesty is frequently elided.

In that case, Shakes, Floo does the eliding very often.  Just look at the start of her most recent post.

[floo]

In that case, Shakes, Floo does the eliding very often.  Just look at the start of her most recent post.

Oh for crying out loud Hope, I am speaking hypothetically. You know darn well I don't believe the Biblical god exists, but believe it is a human creation.

[Shaker]

In that case, Shakes, Floo does the eliding very often.  Just look at the start of her most recent post.

What about it?

Where does it imply that Floo is discussing in anything but a conditional, "If ...." manner?

[Walter]

In that case, Shakes, Floo does the eliding very often.  Just look at the start of her most recent post.

Hope

here it is , its quite simple ,if your god created everything ,then on earth he totally fucked up where humans and hyenas are concerned, have a look on YouTube

Hope , take care of yourself i  wish you  harm

[Hope]

What about it?

Where does it imply that Floo is discussing in anything but a conditional, "If ...." manner?

Compare her wording in #59 with that in #61.   #59 is couched in what you call " ... a conditional, "If ...." manner: the start of #61 is a statement, emphasised in capital letters.  I am aware that her #64 is an attempt to make out that she is speaking hypothetically, but if you follow her posts through the various 'The god of suffering', 'What does the deity look like', 'The deity should have done the decent thing', 'If you were the deity' type threads that she starts, she clearly has at least a residual belief in a God, otherwise she wouldn't be as concerned with said being as she is (in fact, she probably wouldn't have as violent an attitude as he does).

[Hope]

Hope

here it is , its quite simple ,if your god created everything ,then on earth he totally fucked up where humans and hyenas are concerned, have a look on YouTube

Hope , take care of yourself i  wish you  harm

Sorry that you feel that such revolting attitudes would hurt me.  If anything, it really does tell us about you.

[Walter]

Sorry that you feel that such revolting attitudes would hurt me.  If anything, it really does tell us about you.

sorry Hope
I made a typo

I meant I wish you NO HARM  please excuse me .

[Shaker]

Compare her wording in #59 with that in #61.   #59 is couched in what you call " ... a conditional, "If ...." manner: the start of #61 is a statement, emphasised in capital letters.

That, no doubt, is nothing more than a paraphrase of a certain passage in the Book of Isaiah - you know, the one which has God saying that he creates evil.

She also uses the formula "... actions attributed to ..."

I am aware that her #64 is an attempt to make out that she is speaking hypothetically, but if you follow her posts through the various 'The god of suffering', 'What does the deity look like', 'The deity should have done the decent thing', 'If you were the deity' type threads that she starts, she clearly has at least a residual belief in a God, otherwise she wouldn't be as concerned with said being as she is (in fact, she probably wouldn't have as violent an attitude as he does).

You don't need to have any belief in a god, residual or otherwise, to find the concept laughably absurd and the consequences in believers of such a thing contemptible, in some cases thoroughly pernicious and repulsively objectionable (seeking to discriminate and claiming a religious excuse to do so, for example) and in at least some instances downright dangerous to wind and limb.

[Shaker]

Sorry that you feel that such revolting attitudes [...]

Irony, thy name is Hope.

[Walter]

Irony, thy name is Hope.

Shaker,
please be careful , I don't know him/her but I am reminded of times of loving rather than times of conflict .We don't have to go to the far end of a fart to make a point . In the end love conquers all , everything.

happy new year Shaker.

[Sassy]

The problem with the posts of those atheist posting on this thread is they have nothing but ridicule to return for the faith posts.
There are no solid arguments against the posts of Christians and even less understanding about the faith and events it is built on.

God is still working in the world today but none here go look for it.
The same as they never study or seek truth from the bible the word of God.
For all the posts there is much ridicule and the repeating of what others have said in ridicule but there is nothing to offend or deny the truth of Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead.

A lot of blame if a God they do not believe in. In which case they become responsible for their own evil. Either way they condemn themselves. When will we have atheists who can produce an argument based on actual experience of having done what the bible says and having had no results based on a heart seeking truth in sincerity?

Seems deliberate ignorance is not an excuse. In fact if any atheist worth their salt could produce evidence in argument rather than insult and ridicule then we might have a discussion worth having.

[floo]

The problem with the posts of those atheist posting on this thread is they have nothing but ridicule to return for the faith posts.
There are no solid arguments against the posts of Christians and even less understanding about the faith and events it is built on.

God is still working in the world today but none here go look for it.
The same as they never study or seek truth from the bible the word of God.
For all the posts there is much ridicule and the repeating of what others have said in ridicule but there is nothing to offend or deny the truth of Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead.

A lot of blame if a God they do not believe in. In which case they become responsible for their own evil. Either way they condemn themselves. When will we have atheists who can produce an argument based on actual experience of having done what the bible says and having had no results based on a heart seeking truth in sincerity?

Seems deliberate ignorance is not an excuse. In fact if any atheist worth their salt could produce evidence in argument rather than insult and ridicule then we might have a discussion worth having.

People of faith are open to ridicule when they state as a fact something for which they have no verifiable evidence, and is only a belief.

[Walter]

The problem with the posts of those atheist posting on this thread is they have nothing but ridicule to return for the faith posts.
There are no solid arguments against the posts of Christians and even less understanding about the faith and events it is built on.

God is still working in the world today but none here go look for it.
The same as they never study or seek truth from the bible the word of God.
For all the posts there is much ridicule and the repeating of what others have said in ridicule but there is nothing to offend or deny the truth of Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead.

A lot of blame if a God they do not believe in. In which case they become responsible for their own evil. Either way they condemn themselves. When will we have atheists who can produce an argument based on actual experience of having done what the bible says and having had no results based on a heart seeking truth in sincerity?

Seems deliberate ignorance is not an excuse. In fact if any atheist worth their salt could produce evidence in argument rather than insult and ridicule then we might have a discussion worth having.

unfortunately for you, your posts are so ridiculous they don't warrant an argument. Mainly because the burden of proof lies with you , not me.  I see no evidence for your god it is your responsibility to convince me, not the other way round.