Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Nearly Sane]

what I like about this type of response is it is contrary to the claim that God is responsible for everything made by the same people. Good stuff from people bad stuff not people but God.

No, it's not. It's saying that of you are claoming the gokd stuff because he created everything, then he created the bad stuff. It's called a hypothetical based on the ligiv of Spud and yourself. Even had this not been explained to you numerous times, you would have to be either very stupid, lying or both to misrepresent it in this way.

[Nearly Sane]

John Cleese is now appearing on GB News

Your point, caller?

[jeremyp]

But I The analogy both have the power to stop the murder.

But God could stop the murder by making the murderer trip over his shoe laces or some other trivial thing like that. The bus driver has no recourse but to run him down with the bus.
 

In God’s case, cosmically. We would have a world where God is constantly yet specifically in time and space suspending this physical process or that.

Many of your fellow Christians believe exactly that. Spud here is claiming that God provides him food and clothing. Your Bible tells stories about spectacular interventions by your God.

That then renders your next thesis.........Incorrect. To do so has potentially drastic consequences for the world

And yet Christians are constantly claiming God does intervene.

[Sebastian Toe]

John Cleese is now appearing on GB News

Is he alienated from the rest of the MP team?

[jeremyp]

what I like about this type of response is it is contrary to the claim that God is responsible for everything made by the same people. Good stuff from people bad stuff not people but God.

I don't believe in God, remember. I'm not criticising God for not stopping the bad stuff, I'm criticising you for a fundamentally dishonest view of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it's not. It's saying that of you are claoming the gokd stuff because he created everything, then he created the bad stuff. It's called a hypothetical based on the ligiv of Spud and yourself. Even had this not been explained to you numerous times, you would have to be either very stupid, lying or both to misrepresent it in this way.

I am certainly not claiming God created sin. Sin is man’s creation as it were. That you haven’t picked up on that then I’m afraid you are following your own caricature of Christianity. Nor am I saying
that there is no such thing as natural suffering.

Are you proposing an evil creation out of which mankind has struggled to produce the good?

[Nearly Sane]

I am certainly not claiming God created sin. Sin is man’s creation as it were. That you haven’t picked up on that then I’m afraid you are following your own caricature of Christianity. Nor am I saying
that there is no such thing as natural suffering.

Are you proposing an evil creation out of which mankind has struggled to produce the good?

I'm not proposing any creation. The post you replied to was explicit about that. Given such an egregious misunderstanding/misrepresentation, I suggest you go back, read it again, possibly a number of times, and then draft a reply based on what it says.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't believe in God, remember. I'm not criticising God for not stopping the bad stuff, I'm criticising you for a fundamentally dishonest view of God.

But it’s not all about God it’s about how one handles analogy and metaphor and if you say that the world would not be changed radically if God suspended laws of nature in specific times and places on a regular basis then you should have more than a trite or flip sound bite to back up your thesis.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not proposing any creation. The post you replied to was explicit about that. Given such an egregious misunderstanding/misrepresentation, I suggest you go back, read it again, possibly a number of times, and then draft a reply based on what it says.

You are though entering into a conversation about creation and God, proposing how God should have done it. May I suggest it may be better for you to not enter the conversation in the first place?
The last point I made on The IE oP entry on New Atheism is that New Atheists see religion as immoral....and that is the line you and Jeremy are taking.

[Nearly Sane]

You are though entering into a conversation about creation and God proposing how God should have done it. May I suggest it may be better for you to not enter the conversation in the first place?
The last point I made on The IE oP entry on New Atheism is that New Atheists see religion as immoral....and that is the line you and Jeremy are taking?

Ah your beliefs are so fragile that someone not accepting them shouldn't duscuss them.

As to the question in the second paragraph, I can't answer for jeremyp, but no, I don't think religion is evil, nor I have said, suggested that, or implied that here.

Indeed, I have posted many times on the board, that I think religion is just a symptom of what it means to be human, and is morally neutral.

Pointing out that the god you or Spud suggests is a moral thug, and that by your logic you worship the creation of cancer is about your representations of your views.

[Nearly Sane]

But it’s not all about God it’s about how one handles analogy and metaphor and if you say that the world would not be changed radically if God suspended laws of nature in specific times and places on a regular basis then you should have more than a trite or flip sound bite to back up your thesis.

So you think that Spud's posts are trite and flip sound backs, as that is what the position is based on. To be fair, if that's the case, I agree, Spud is posting trite and flip sound bites.

[Spud]

I suspect bereaved parents would tell you to stop the infantile and twee nonsense: the loss of one's child cannot be dismissed so tritely.

I was thinking of a specific example of a man in the Bible who experienced that type of loss. After his son had died he told those around him that no amount of mourning would bring him back, yet he would eventually go to him.

Plus, hatred and sorrow makes one ill. Better to count one's blessings, food and clothing etc.

[Sebastian Toe]

Better to count one's blessings,

....such as not being religious, now that's a blessing some would say.

[jeremyp]

But it’s not all about God it’s about how one handles analogy and metaphor and if you say that the world would not be changed radically if God suspended laws of nature in specific times and places on a regular basis then you should have more than a trite or flip sound bite to back up your thesis.

But the Christian claim is that God suspends the laws of nature in specific times and places on a regular basis. God apparently saves individuals that survive air crashes, but does nothing to stop the air crash from happening at all. God gives Spud food and clothing but intervening in a rape or a murder would change the world too radically.

You need to step back a bit and try to read your posts as somebody who doesn't believe in your god would. Then you'll see that, to us, they are make no sense. It really does look like you are making apologies for a god that does not give a fuck about most people and pretending he loves us.

You are not as good a snake oil salesman as the person who convinced you.

[jeremyp]

I was thinking of a specific example of a man in the Bible who experienced that type of loss. After his son had died he told those around him that no amount of mourning would bring him back, yet he would eventually go to him.

Plus, hatred and sorrow makes one ill. Better to count one's blessings, food and clothing etc.

I'm still intrigued about the food and clothing thing. How does that mechanic work? Does a fully cooked meal appear on your door step like meals on wheels? Or does food magically materialise in your fridge? Have you considered the possibility that it might be your wife providing it, not God?

[Nearly Sane]

I was thinking of a specific example of a man in the Bible who experienced that type of loss. After his son had died he told those around him that no amount of mourning would bring him back, yet he would eventually go to him.

Plus, hatred and sorrow makes one ill. Better to count one's blessings, food and clothing etc.

So your advice to anyone whose child has died is don't feel sorrow? Did that make sense in your head?

[Outrider]

Most have forms of alienation that are acceptable and those that are not. Would I be right in saying that your own culture has the best steer on psychological issues?

I'm not the one that needs to explain it, as I'm not the one that was asserting it. Crack on.

O.

[Spud]

So your advice to anyone whose child has died is don't feel sorrow? Did that make sense in your head?

Sorrow in the sense that you describe it - when it consumes you so much that you are unaware of the good things you still have.

[Spud]

I'm still intrigued about the food and clothing thing. How does that mechanic work? Does a fully cooked meal appear on your door step like meals on wheels? Or does food magically materialise in your fridge? Have you considered the possibility that it might be your wife providing it, not God?

I was brought up to say grace before meals, at school and home. God is the source of our food and clothes, even if we buy them.
Ps I'm interested in your and others' comment about offence against God, and the implications of him creating us knowing some people would hurt other people and by extension him. Am still chewing it over.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorrow in the sense that you describe it - when it consumes you so much that you are unaware of the good things you still have.

So your god chooses to allow a child to die of cancer, and then you worship it, and blame the parent if they are more upset than you think they should be.

[Nearly Sane]

I was brought up to say grace before meals, at school and home. God is the source of our food and clothes, even if we buy them.
Ps I'm interested in your and others' comment about offence against God, and the implications of him creating us knowing some people would hurt other people and by extension him. Am still chewing it over.

And god is the source of cancer. Do you think the parent of a child that dies of leakeamia should thank him for that?

[Spud]

And god is the source of cancer. Do you think the parent of a child that dies of leakeamia should thank him for that?

If God can give something, in this case a child, then he has the right to take it back.

[Nearly Sane]

If God can give something, in this case a child, then he has the right to take it back.

And to cause pain to the child while your god murders the child. You rejoice in pain and death. You worship a cosmic thug who makes a mafia boss look good.

[Spud]

And to cause pain to the child while your god murders the child. You rejoice in pain and death. You worship a cosmic thug who makes a mafia boss look good.

Everyone goes through pain and death - does he murder everyone? No, it's the result of human rejection of God. The good news is there will be a new creation without pain and death.

[Nearly Sane]

Everyone goes through pain and death - does he murder everyone?

Some more directly than others by your approach. After all, your psycho blood god supposedly drowned everyone but 8 people. It killed all the first born children in Egypt. You cheerlead for a mass murderer.