By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - God doesn't prevent terrible things because?

 

Please choose wisely....

A. He can't 24 6.96%
 
B. He doesn't want to 86 24.93%
 
C. He causes them 22 6.38%
 
D. He doesn't exist. 213 61.74%
 
Total:345
SlayerRondo said:
richardhutnik said:
MegaManX said:
E. Free Will

Actually now that I think about it, I don't think there could be a God because no loving God would give this troll a career. He's known for his views on religion and his tweets. I'm glad we still live in a country where we are all free to believe in what we want but for somebody in showbiz, he should probably shut his mouth if he wants ratings/fans/box office revenue. I don't dislike him because he has different beliefs than me, I dislike him because he really isn't funny and has a condensending attitude that is a big turnoff.

F. Perspective on what is evil, and things that are problems are.  Like, I think it is a pretty close to terrible thing I have to tolerate another individual rehashing Ricky Gervais rehasing underdeveloped theological thoughts.  Individuals like him are like individuals who think they outgrew Santa, know better, and just can't let others live with their belief in Santa.  Because, when they lost their belief in Santa, they feel they are missing something, and long for greateness.  If they, somehow, just can find the magic bullet, they will be famous.  They will the tbe Wyld Stallyns of this world, and society will build a shrine to their wisdom.   So, maybe I can go with Chesterton on this one and say that, if it wasn't for God, there wouldn't be atheists like Gervaris.  They are individuals that live to be attention whores, because being on the top of the mind of people gets them work

Free will can answer a number of things, but doesn't answer all.  And it is uncertain even if Free Will exists.  But, I say it can count for some though.  Like, the bulk of First World Problems:

God's fault?

I am sure they could be others to, as for the nature of evil, which is useful to discuss in general.  But for me to spend time on it with an individual who merely has an axe to grind, and axe grinding is part of their ability to get fame?  Sorry, not feeding that.

So you call the arguments used by Ricky Gervais underdeveloped but then call all athiest who seek to provide arguments against the existence of god  are attention whores and not just people seeking to eliminate a commonly held false belief. You then follow this up with the notion that athiest only exist because there is a god without explaining how that makes sense in any way, which is akin to saying if you have to prove something wrong it must be right.

All you have done is  slander athiest rather than just deal with the arguments they have presented.

I am not talking about all atheists, just the Rickys of the world and those, like Hitchens, who went and put out books that rehashed old arguments that got refuted.  You even had the likes of Hawkings doing the Grand Design, which was not built on solid theological arguments, but old ones that were dealt with awhile ago.  Hawkings goes off and declares philosophy dead, for example:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/magis-center-of-reason-and-faith/the-grand-design-or-the-murky-metaphysics-of-stephen-hawking/208376042533858

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2007/are-the-new-atheists-avoiding-the-real-arguments/

 

When you don't bring anything new to the table, but rehas old arguments and toot a horn as if it is significant, you are an attention whore, railing against things, in hopes to change the world.  This is particularly true when you have financial gain for doing such. You hope you can be THE one who does the FINAL nail in the coffin, and then win the world over.  It is a religious impulse to convert people to something.  In the case of doing what Ricky is doing, it is an attempt to convert people to nothing actually, except one where you stand in awe of Ricky's said genius.

And my calling Ricky an attention whore is accurate (as it would be for anyone working in the media) because his career lives or dies based upon how much people pay attention to him and what he does.  Hitchens lived in the same realm also.  Others selling books likewise did this.  Heck, even Taleb, who wrote "Antifragile" has to be a degree of an attention whore, to get his book sold.  And he is very anti-social by the way, and unreachable.



Around the Network

I wonder how Ancient Civilizations that shaped civilization into what it is today, managed to get by with their polytheistic pagan models of religion. Those poor souls.



Miracles - God can intervene to make the world a better place
Free will - God can't intervene to make the world a better place
Prayer - God can intervene if you ask him to
God's plan - God gets to decide what happens and everything happens for a reason

It's all one big contradiction.



DJEVOLVE said:

Please explain your vote.

The bible response is that he can't because of free will. If you choose to do it he can't stop you.

To have free will you need option, you can never be good without choosing not to be bad. Ying and Yeng, one can't exist without the other. But the choice is yours



secpierre34 said:
DJEVOLVE said:

Please explain your vote.

The bible response is that he can't because of free will. If you choose to do it he can't stop you.

To have free will you need option, you can never be good without choosing not to be bad. Ying and Yeng, one can't exist without the other. But the choice is yours

So what about the people who are raped/murdered/tortured against their will? Apparently god cares more about the free will of the bad guys than that of the victims. If god is omnipotent, he could have made the universe without a necessity of evil.  
Also, natural disasters, disease, plagues, and famine have nothing to do with humanity's choices in being good or bad.



Around the Network
Accela said:
secpierre34 said:
DJEVOLVE said:

Please explain your vote.

The bible response is that he can't because of free will. If you choose to do it he can't stop you.

To have free will you need option, you can never be good without choosing not to be bad. Ying and Yeng, one can't exist without the other. But the choice is yours

So what about the people who are raped/murdered/tortured against their will? Apparently god cares more about the free will of the bad guys than that of the victims. If god is omnipotent, he could have made the universe without a necessity of evil.  
Also, natural disasters, disease, plagues, and famine have nothing to do with humanity's choices in being good or bad.


Sh!t happens lol

 

What are your beliefs at this point? Do you believe that there is a god? Are you an Atheist? Agnostic?

 

Just curious



Spam replaced with a slightly less topical gif - Kresnik




richardhutnik said:
SlayerRondo said:
richardhutnik said:
MegaManX said:
E. Free Will

Actually now that I think about it, I don't think there could be a God because no loving God would give this troll a career. He's known for his views on religion and his tweets. I'm glad we still live in a country where we are all free to believe in what we want but for somebody in showbiz, he should probably shut his mouth if he wants ratings/fans/box office revenue. I don't dislike him because he has different beliefs than me, I dislike him because he really isn't funny and has a condensending attitude that is a big turnoff.

F. Perspective on what is evil, and things that are problems are.  Like, I think it is a pretty close to terrible thing I have to tolerate another individual rehashing Ricky Gervais rehasing underdeveloped theological thoughts.  Individuals like him are like individuals who think they outgrew Santa, know better, and just can't let others live with their belief in Santa.  Because, when they lost their belief in Santa, they feel they are missing something, and long for greateness.  If they, somehow, just can find the magic bullet, they will be famous.  They will the tbe Wyld Stallyns of this world, and society will build a shrine to their wisdom.   So, maybe I can go with Chesterton on this one and say that, if it wasn't for God, there wouldn't be atheists like Gervaris.  They are individuals that live to be attention whores, because being on the top of the mind of people gets them work

Free will can answer a number of things, but doesn't answer all.  And it is uncertain even if Free Will exists.  But, I say it can count for some though.  Like, the bulk of First World Problems:

God's fault?

I am sure they could be others to, as for the nature of evil, which is useful to discuss in general.  But for me to spend time on it with an individual who merely has an axe to grind, and axe grinding is part of their ability to get fame?  Sorry, not feeding that.

So you call the arguments used by Ricky Gervais underdeveloped but then call all athiest who seek to provide arguments against the existence of god  are attention whores and not just people seeking to eliminate a commonly held false belief. You then follow this up with the notion that athiest only exist because there is a god without explaining how that makes sense in any way, which is akin to saying if you have to prove something wrong it must be right.

All you have done is  slander athiest rather than just deal with the arguments they have presented.

I am not talking about all atheists, just the Rickys of the world and those, like Hitchens, who went and put out books that rehashed old arguments that got refuted.  You even had the likes of Hawkings doing the Grand Design, which was not built on solid theological arguments, but old ones that were dealt with awhile ago.  Hawkings goes off and declares philosophy dead, for example:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/magis-center-of-reason-and-faith/the-grand-design-or-the-murky-metaphysics-of-stephen-hawking/208376042533858

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2007/are-the-new-atheists-avoiding-the-real-arguments/

 

When you don't bring anything new to the table, but rehas old arguments and toot a horn as if it is significant, you are an attention whore, railing against things, in hopes to change the world.  This is particularly true when you have financial gain for doing such. You hope you can be THE one who does the FINAL nail in the coffin, and then win the world over.  It is a religious impulse to convert people to something.  In the case of doing what Ricky is doing, it is an attempt to convert people to nothing actually, except one where you stand in awe of Ricky's said genius.

And my calling Ricky an attention whore is accurate (as it would be for anyone working in the media) because his career lives or dies based upon how much people pay attention to him and what he does.  Hitchens lived in the same realm also.  Others selling books likewise did this.  Heck, even Taleb, who wrote "Antifragile" has to be a degree of an attention whore, to get his book sold.  And he is very anti-social by the way, and unreachable.


You are simply labeling them nagatively because you want to make them out to be bad people by claiming them to have grandious dreams of being the ones who ended thousands of years of religious superstition in one foul swoop. Yes he is famous and like all famous people he seeks to gain attention but that does not mesn he is deviod of principles.

Also he is not converting people to anything but rather deconverting them from a particular way of thinking that he believes is non-sense. And labeling the process on converting one's way of thinking as religious is simply you trying to insert religion into the everyday non-religious aspects of people's lives.

Society has developed over time by people arguing and debating over what they believe and NOT respecting every one's way of thinking so that bad ideas die out. Religion and it's influence over society has and will continue to decline over time as more and more people have access to the knowledge that refutes such archaic beliefs.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

Accela said:
secpierre34 said:
DJEVOLVE said:

Please explain your vote.

The bible response is that he can't because of free will. If you choose to do it he can't stop you.

To have free will you need option, you can never be good without choosing not to be bad. Ying and Yeng, one can't exist without the other. But the choice is yours

So what about the people who are raped/murdered/tortured against their will? Apparently god cares more about the free will of the bad guys than that of the victims. If god is omnipotent, he could have made the universe without a necessity of evil.  
Also, natural disasters, disease, plagues, and famine have nothing to do with humanity's choices in being good or bad.

And how does a tsunami killing thousands of people factor into free will?

Or dying of disease thousands of years before any form of medication was availible for use?

Remember all those people who chose to die of cancer? Me Neither



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

Accela said:
secpierre34 said:
DJEVOLVE said:

Please explain your vote.

The bible response is that he can't because of free will. If you choose to do it he can't stop you.

To have free will you need option, you can never be good without choosing not to be bad. Ying and Yeng, one can't exist without the other. But the choice is yours

So what about the people who are raped/murdered/tortured against their will? Apparently god cares more about the free will of the bad guys than that of the victims. If god is omnipotent, he could have made the universe without a necessity of evil.  
Also, natural disasters, disease, plagues, and famine have nothing to do with humanity's choices in being good or bad.

The point is that without these things we wouldn't be humans. IF everything at been well from the beginning you would not know it is. I would prefer that we as human fix ourselves rather than waiting for someone or something to do it. That is the point of christianity really, to become a better self and to give others the help to achieve it. Lunatics often misconstrue the bible in the wrong way, thus we have idiots like Michelle Bachman, but the smarter 2 billion know better. You would not wish for good if you did not know what bad is, and perhaps we need bad to enjoy the good in life.