How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

[torridon]

Any positive assertion has the burden of proof ''God is fictional'' has no trace of the negative. Examine the sentence if you wish.

Like I said, I'm not impressed by word games, and that's all you are doing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Like I said, I'm not impressed by word games, and that's all you are doing.

I'm sorry you are going to have to submit your working out since 'God is fictional 'is clearly a positive assertion
Just as 'Flying spaghetti monster is fictional', or 'Leprechauns are fictional' and yet you try to find an antitheist who would let you get away with those?

[SteveH]

Nobody can rebel against a fictional character.

The spirit of Oscar is not dead!

[torridon]

I'm sorry you are going to have to submit your working out since 'God is fictional 'is clearly a positive assertion
Just as 'Flying spaghetti monster is fictional', or 'Leprechauns are fictional' and yet you try to find an antitheist who would let you get away with those?

Already explained that in #537.  The primary claim is that god exists; it is that which has a burden of proof. All you are doing is picking up on responses to the primary claim hoping to find some wording that you can parade as if it were an original claim carrying an equivalent burden of proof.  You're not fooling anyone.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Already explained that in #537.  The primary claim is that god exists; it is that which has a burden of proof.

Agreed but not because it is the primary claim but because it is a positive assertion.

[floo]

Not everybody agrees Floo or finds the hungry wolvine look of a New atheist in full ridicule mode appealing.

Not everyone has read the Bible, which lists god's atrocities .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not everyone has read the Bible, which lists god's atrocities .

Unfortunately they are mans atrocities and the consequence of falling away. It's in genesis Floo since that is your reference. Having to rescue or preserve human goodness in warfare by terrible means is unfortunately the stamp of a fallen world. As Richard Feyneman might have possibly told you.

[SteveH]

LR does have a point: they may have been human atrocities, but they were specifically commanded by God, according to the account.

[floo]

Unfortunately they are mans atrocities and the consequence of falling away. It's in genesis Floo since that is your reference. Having to rescue or preserve human goodness in warfare by terrible means is unfortunately the stamp of a fallen world. As Richard Feyneman might have possibly told you.

The flood was god's atrocity. God supposedly created human nature so it could enjoy humans suffering, imo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The flood was god's atrocity. God supposedly created human nature so it could enjoy humans suffering, imo.

It's rare that natural disasters are called atrocity so I suppose I shall have to grasp what your meaning is here.
Going back to Genesis Man is in unbroken communion with God so presumably that communion is not broken by natural processes. Prefall man does not experience death merely change.

After the fall In the course of time natural processes become visitations on humanity but clearly the quotidian events would be seen as a blessing and catastrophes as a curse from God. This would be the model until Zoroaster and the book of Job which introduce? the ideas of heaven and hell that death could indeed be just a change and a restoration of full communion and that bad things happen to good people and the sun shines on the righteous and unrighteousness etc.

So yes God allows natural processes in which we can get caught up in but also give the means to not only to survive but to prosper and also holds the promise of reuniting with him.

So I wonder if natural processes can be termed as atrocities.

[Stranger]

The flood was god's atrocity. God supposedly created human nature so it could enjoy humans suffering, imo.

It's rare that natural disasters are called atrocity so I suppose I shall have to grasp what your meaning is here.

Err... I'd of thought even you would be able to work out what she was referring to - go look at Genesis 6-8.

Going back to Genesis Man is in unbroken communion with God so presumably that communion is not broken by natural processes. Prefall man does not experience death merely change.

Once again we run up against your god's vindictive injustice - visiting the consequences of this 'fall' on furture generations who were not responsible for breaking this communion.

The god of the bible is simply not a just and fair being; it's a monster. This is why faith is so frightening: it blinds people to clear and obvious injustice.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's rare that natural disasters are called atrocity so I suppose I shall have to grasp what your meaning is here.


Err... I'd of thought even you would be able to work out what she was referring to - go look at Genesis 6-8.

Once again we run up against your god's vindictive injustice - visiting the consequences of this 'fall' on furture generations who were not responsible for breaking this communion.

The god of the bible is simply not a just and fair being; it's a monster. This is why faith is so frightening: it blinds people to clear and obvious injustice.

I feel you are working on the model that God sees you doing wrong and then visits something bad on you. That is an historic model but another way of looking at this is to say since the fall we experience the natural world in an alienated way.

I don't think the lines were severed completely but this is due to the facility of Christ. As I said people find God in the OT but even where the communion is close and strong there is still rebellion. Neither Adam nor Eve or cain and Able, whoever the first humans to break the communion were guilty of Global warming or the Atom bomb.

I disagree with your conclusion that religion blinds people to clear and obvious injustice since that occurs in secular and atheist societies and individuals also.

That is why for example IMV a secularist can see 20 privileged bishops in the House of Lords but is completely oblivious to scores of other groups which are privileged but because they are secular, invisible.

[Stranger]

I feel you are working on the model that God sees you doing wrong and then visits something bad on you.

I'm not working on such a model in general - but the the bible is quite explicit about this particular incident (Genesis 6:5-7 NIV):

⁵ The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. ⁶ The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. ⁷ So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

(Quite what the other animals had done to deserve such fate, remains a mystery.)

That is an historic model but another way of looking at this is to say since the fall we experience the natural world in an alienated way.

Once again we have the unjust imposition of consequences of this 'fall' on people who never chose it.

I disagree with your conclusion that religion blinds people to clear and obvious injustice since that occurs in secular and atheist societies and individuals also.

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen outside of religion, but religion is very good at the job - witness all the otherwise good people who swallow the evil monster god of the OT without even admitting to themselves that that is what is being described. Then going on to accept that the condemnation of all of humanity as 'sinners' is somehow reasonable for humanity's creator to do, and that the perverse substitution of Christ is somehow an act of love.

That is why for example IMV a secularist can see 20 privileged bishops in the House of Lords but is completely oblivious to scores of other groups which are privileged but because they are secular, invisible.

Not really sure who you are referring to. How about an example?

[ippy]

No It seems like every time I ask I'm told it has been explained many etc.
What has NPF got to do with SH apart from withholding their understanding from enquierers?

Well Vlad, what do you expect, in spite of the numerous occasions you've had N P F fully explained too you and you still keep on giving out N P F's about this god belief of yours within your posts.

I can't prove leprechauns exist in the same way as you can't prove god exists, (for the sake of argument I believe in leprechauns and assert that they really do exist), it's now for you to prove me wrong about my asserted belief in leprechauns; now that's a N P F made by me referring to leprechauns.

I'm not making any serious claim about the existence of leprechauns, like most non-religious people, so it makes it the default position to take and incumbent on those that insist that leprechauns do exist to prove their case.

Substitute God for leprechauns and it's the same argument, different subject, try to demonstrate that you're not so thick that you can't understand this.

Don't expect any response from me if you choose to go into another one of your nonsense word jumble type responses.

Regards ippy

   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not working on such a model in general - but the the bible is quite explicit about this particular incident (Genesis 6:5-7 NIV):

⁵ The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. ⁶ The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. ⁷ So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

(Quite what the other animals had done to deserve such fate, remains a mystery.)

It's a story with true elements Stranger. Meditate on't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well Vlad, what do you expect, in spite of the numerous occasions you've had N P F fully explained too you and you still keep on giving out N P F's about this god belief of yours within your posts.

I can't prove leprechauns exist in the same way as you can't prove god exists, (for the sake of argument I believe in leprechauns and assert that they really do exist), it's now for you to prove me wrong about my asserted belief in leprechauns; now that's a N P F made by me referring to leprechauns.

I'm not making any serious claim about the existence of leprechauns, like most non-religious people, so it makes it the default position to take and incumbent on those that insist that leprechauns do exist to prove their case.

Substitute God for leprechauns and it's the same argument, different subject, try to demonstrate that you're not so thick that you can't understand this.

Don't expect any response from me if you choose to go into another one of your nonsense word jumble type responses.

Regards ippy

 

Why use the word Leprechauns though. Why not naturalism? or scientism? or empiricism? or materialism? Like God all explanations of the way things are.

IMHO it then becomes uncomfortable since they are positive assertions in there own right yet unfalsifiable.

[Stranger]

It's a story with true elements Stranger.

What would those be?

Meditate on't.

Why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What would those be?

Why?

Cos' anyone can get into shootin' from the hip mode on stuff which hasn't been read, Marked and inwardly digested properly. I speak as a fellow intellectual of course.

[ippy]

Why use the word Leprechauns though. Why not naturalism? or scientism? or empiricism? or materialism? Like God all explanations of the way things are.

IMHO it then becomes uncomfortable since they are positive assertions in there own right yet unfalsifiable.

True to form Vlad, you're incapable of giving a straight answer to anything, yes O K I've got it, would have been the correct answer, you just can't make yourself do it.

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

True to form Vlad, you're incapable of giving a straight answer to anything, yes O K I've got it, would have been the correct answer, you just can't make yourself do it.

Regards ippy

yet again Ippy I am asking a question.

All answers have been given vis.

Antitheists are talking on religious issues with a shocking lack of knowledge of what they seem to want to talk about.

If atheism is merely the lack of faith in Gods then, as small pebbles fulfil that criteria, an atheist of that ilk has no more to say than a stone.

Let's face it Ippy what answer does your plucky, knees up muvva brown rhetorical  question ''Its Crayp, Innit Vlad, wot you gotta say to that then Vlad, it's crayp, Craaayyyyyppp.!!!!! merit?

[Stranger]

Antitheists are talking on religious issues with a shocking lack of knowledge of what they seem to want to talk about.

Odd that you never seem able to supply any of this pertinent knowledge. You often witter on about this supposed ignorance but you have never actually said, during the course of a debate on the validity of religion, "but what about X", where X represents a relevant fact from the field that materially affects the argument.

If atheism is merely the lack of faith in Gods then, as small pebbles fulfil that criteria, an atheist of that ilk has no more to say than a stone.

You seem to be confusing the definition of atheism with people who are atheists. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods but people who lack that belief often have other beliefs and attitudes (amazingly enough). They may, for example, want to promote a rational approach to matters of fact and hence to speak out against superstition.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be confusing the definition of atheism with people who are atheists. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods but people who lack that belief often have other beliefs and attitudes (amazingly enough). They may, for example, want to promote a rational approach to matters of fact and hence to speak out against superstition.

As maybe as that is the defence that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods is the retreat position if their prime identity, When Atheism is challenged.

Why not some honesty?, Something like I am an atheist because the way I see the world is not altered by religious claims......oh aye and how do you see the world?

This information is seldom forthcoming and so we have to glean what it is from the responses they give.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Odd that you never seem able to supply any of this pertinent knowledge. You often witter on about this supposed ignorance but you have never actually said, during the course of a debate on the validity of religion, "but what about X", where X represents a relevant fact from the field that materially affects the argument.

Your version of the fall in Genesis lacked and still does some important points and ends up a misinformed distortion avoiding the key point IMHO. In your account hard determinism and the myth of human responsibility is the conclusion. .

Dicky Underpants attempted later in the day to back you up suggesting the Adam and Eve account wasn't relevant.
Without the fall and God subsequently maintaining links with humanity there would be no Old Testament.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Why not some honesty?, Something like I am an atheist because the way I see the world is not altered by religious claims......oh aye and how do you see the world?

Good luck with that old son, sometimes we see a small glimpse but then the petticoat is quickly covered and it is rapidly back to Flying Spaghetti Monsters and orbiting teapots 

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Vlad,

Good luck with that old son, sometimes we see a small glimpse but then the petticoat is quickly covered and it is rapidly back to Flying Spaghetti Monsters and orbiting teapots 

Gonnagle.

Good Morning Mr G
As usual you are straight there in a pithy sentence.
I have truly missed that recently. Good to see you back in action sir.