The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: cut to the chase...

Re: cut to the chase...
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Sunday, December 4 2011, 0:27:12 (UTC)
from *** - *** Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Arrow wrote:
> but that's like saying "Let's narrow down the argument about the existence of the Easter Bunny"
>
>The point is: “let's narrow down the argument”.

...a silly argument, even if narrowed down, is still silly. It is patently silly to discuss, even in a narrowed version, the existence and powers of the Easter Bunny...no less so to discuss the existence or powers of Yahwe or any god...it's still all make-believe.
>
> you obviously place faith or interest in the existence of a god
>
>As a matter of fact, I do.

...well there you have it...that's the problem. Had I said "you obviously place faith in the Easter Bunny", you would scoff and call me silly...but a god? For both the Bunny and god you have no evidence, no proof...you can't have a rational discussion with one who places faith in irrationality...you and Aquinas may think you have proven the case for the existence of god...but you haven't, You merely begin by stating the conclusion you say you are going to reach...through analysis, or logic, or "proofs"...but you start out saying you BELIEVE, and on no evidence. You can't have a discussion on that basis...not with those who don;t buy your premise.

..I still say god is irrelevant....whether this god or that god or ten gods..what counts is what people who believe in gods think they can get away, because they claim to have a god backing them up....let's discuss that and not whether there really is something behind them.
>
> my point is that gods and tooth fairies and bunnnies are all in the same category...and hardly worth the effort.
>
>Okay, let's NOT debate it then!

...okay.
>
> The pertinent discussing would still be WHY they think a big Rabbit gives them the right to do what they do to children and the rest of us.
>
>Okay, we debate THAT then!

...okay...bring it on.
>
> god isn't the issue, or shouldn't be.
>
>Okay, if that's not the issue, then let's NOT debate it!
>
> II – The Problem of Evil: (If God exists, then He wouldn't allow evil to befall upon the innocent).
>>
>>...there is no "problem" with the existence of evil...
>
>How come? Some atheists say “there's no God BECAUSE if there is, then there wouldn't be evil”. And THAT is what they call: “The Problem of Evil”.

...I draw a distinction between atheists who are actually agnostic but are posing, and those who never bought this stuff from the beginning...if you reject god, you reject sin and you reject evil, as emanating from a god...you capitalized "Evil"...make it smaller case,evil...and we can talk...although I don't like the concept of evil because it seems to be a pretense by which you can kill a bad man's children as well...like he was SO bad he was EVIL...and maybe it's catching, so why not do away with the whole family...designating people as evil seems to create a different category, one which allows us to be horribly horrible.
>
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
>
> there is no problem with the existence of rattlesnakes either...they exist. They are not a "mistake"...we don;t have to kill all sharks because every so often one of them eats human. There is nothing "wrong" with humans...they are this way and that...good and bad. That's the way we are...education can influence us for better or worse, but we are not a "problem".
>
>What are you talking about?

...there is nothing unnatural about evil...no need to get all hot bothered...evil isn't a "problem"..any more than volcanoes are...or snakes. Evil is natural..it is human...it is familiar....it's not an aberration...take it is stride and try to minimize its impact...and the best way is with early education...not with guilt and sin and damnation.
>
> >>I – One religion versus the other.
>>
>>...sure, but still a meaningless comparison, if you want to cut to the chase...who cares what form of human folly is the cause of my misery...I want all of them to end.
>
>Okay, if you don't want to debate that, then let's NOT debate it!
>
> >>II – Atheism versus all religions.
>>
>>...that depends...if the atheism is pure, sure...
>
>How can atheism be unpure?

...converts are always a pain in the ass....if you never believed this crap, if you found it ludicrous from the beginning and smelled the rat behind it, I would say you are a pure atheist...but, if you're secretly disappointed that you drew that conclusion and WISH it wasn't true, then you aren't a real atheist...I would NOT be pleased to find there was a god, of any kind. It gives me no comfort, no reassurance...it would be a great sadness....so I'm a pure atheist and always have been....at six it made no sense to me and never came close.
>
> but if it's just another "belief", then what's the point.
>
>Atheism as an another belief? You are gong to give me nervous breakdown.

...I mean if you once believed in god and then didn;t believe...you are prone to "beliefs" and to changing them. I'm glad no one had to teach me capital punishment is wrong...I'm glad I didn;t first believe and then not believe...with me a rejection of capital punishment isn't a belief...it is a conviction....part of my cell structure...just like atheism. I just don;t work that way.
>
> There is no reason to believe in a god....none.
>
>Okay, let's NOT debate God then!

...okay by me...let's stick to what people do when they BELIEVE in a god. You said or implied that when people think god is watching, they behave better...I see no evidence of that...maybe the opposite.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9