(April 7, 2009 at 2:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Nature is beautiful, good and bad.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that to me, an earthquake that kills 100 or so people isn't "beautiful"

(April 7, 2009 at 2:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You just take what comes bozo. God is the whole thing rather than a micro event. God is always good. That doesn't always coincide with our interests. It'd be egotistical to think otherwise. Nature is beautiful, good and bad.

Mr Frodo, you are mischievous and as slippery as a great big slippery thing...and quite entertaining!
Now please try to convince me/us that a killer earthquake is " good " and " beautiful "...I get how it could be " bad ".

(April 6, 2009 at 5:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 6, 2009 at 4:48 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Being grateful for what? For saving the lives that were saved (does that include those that were injured and maimed?) or for sending a lethal quake in the first fucking place?

So you personally, not thinking about God, but just thinking as the perfect Atheist, wouldn't be grateful that you had survived in any way. Of course you'd probably be extremely sad at the grotesque scenes around you.

Who would I be grateful to? If I was rescued yes, I;d be very grateful to those who rescued me and who offered me help and comfort in my time of need but if I simply survived who exactly would I be grateful to? I'd be happy to have survived, consider myself lucky but grateful? I don't think so.

(April 5, 2009 at 3:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Seemingly your idea of God is not the God which is nature. Good and bad. Mine is. I can't excuse yours, he isn't my God.

I don't have a god and as has been said to you before your "god of nature" is pointless since you seem to be giving something a name which already has one, one that is perfectly adequate.

Kyu

(April 7, 2009 at 12:06 pm)bozo Wrote:

(April 7, 2009 at 2:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You just take what comes bozo. God is the whole thing rather than a micro event. God is always good. That doesn't always coincide with our interests. It'd be egotistical to think otherwise. Nature is beautiful, good and bad.

Mr Frodo, you are mischievous and as slippery as a great big slippery thing...and quite entertaining!
Now please try to convince me/us that a killer earthquake is " good " and " beautiful "...I get how it could be " bad ".

LOL ..I think you got me!

When an Ant colony gets wiped out by some shift in the environment - we can see that as inevitable changes and things move on. There doesn't have to be a reason why Ant's should seek answers, but we know very well nature is just following nature's course. Yeah sure us fellow ants feel sad, we can't help that. This has no bearing on the shift.

I just happen to think that the physical universe is pretty awe inspiring. I need no other padding like religion etc to appreciate that.

(April 7, 2009 at 3:36 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(April 6, 2009 at 5:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 6, 2009 at 4:48 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Being grateful for what? For saving the lives that were saved (does that include those that were injured and maimed?) or for sending a lethal quake in the first fucking place?

So you personally, not thinking about God, but just thinking as the perfect Atheist, wouldn't be grateful that you had survived in any way. Of course you'd probably be extremely sad at the grotesque scenes around you.

Who would I be grateful to? If I was rescued yes, I;d be very grateful to those who rescued me and who offered me help and comfort in my time of need but if I simply survived who exactly would I be grateful to? I'd be happy to have survived, consider myself lucky but grateful? I don't think so.

Do you have to be grateful to someone? Why can't you just be grateful yourself, alone. this is what I meant.

(April 7, 2009 at 3:36 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(April 5, 2009 at 3:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Seemingly your idea of God is not the God which is nature. Good and bad. Mine is. I can't excuse yours, he isn't my God.

I don't have a god and as has been said to you before your "god of nature" is pointless since you seem to be giving something a name which already has one, one that is perfectly adequate.

You just define a God so I call that yours. It isn't mine. Nature isn't God, but as God is in everything, God is in Nature. i.e. nature doesn't define God.

If I survived an earthquake and my neigbour did not,I'd be suitably grateful to the person who pulled me out of the rubble,but not for surviving per se.


I'd also be glad (but have the good taste not to say so) that it was my neighbour who died instead of me. After all,MY life is far more value than HIS--it's MINE!

Besides,I'm far better equipped to deal with having survived a natural disaster than most. Nature has endowed me with the ability to endure the suffering of others with great fortitude.

My point was, that you may just be happy/ glad/ grateful in yourself that you'd survived. Like you're happy to have full health, not afflicted with some disease or condition that makes your life difficult. Or am I wrong here.. is it really only theists that can express gratitude unselfishly simply because of the deity in the equation?

I would't call that gratitude but a realization that you are more fortunate than others. I see nothing to be grateful for.

(April 6, 2009 at 5:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 6, 2009 at 4:48 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Who would I be grateful to? If I was rescued yes, I;d be very grateful to those who rescued me and who offered me help and comfort in my time of need but if I simply survived who exactly would I be grateful to? I'd be happy to have survived, consider myself lucky but grateful? I don't think so.

Do you have to be grateful to someone? Why can't you just be grateful yourself, alone. this is what I meant.

Why would I? I'd simply consider myself lucky.

(April 7, 2009 at 3:36 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(April 5, 2009 at 3:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't have a god and as has been said to you before your "god of nature" is pointless since you seem to be giving something a name which already has one, one that is perfectly adequate.

You just define a God so I call that yours. It isn't mine. Nature isn't God, but as God is in everything, God is in Nature. i.e. nature doesn't define God.

More fool you then ... I have no god, period!

Kyu

(April 7, 2009 at 2:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: . God is the whole thing rather than a micro event. God is always good. That doesn't always coincide with our interests. It'd be egotistical to think otherwise. Nature is beautiful, good and bad.

If god is always good, explain all of the genocide described in the bible. Countless innocents 'died' (of course im agreeing what take place in the bible is true for the sake of argument) for the sake of what is 'good'? Because the bible demands of us to follow the example of god are we to randomly destory each other or go to hell becuase we want to live the life we want to?

Your god seem to be full of emotion making judgements randomly rather like a Dragonforce riff (for those of you who dont know: http://www.clevver.com/music/video/14037...lames.html). For example:

Numbers 15:35
'And the Lord said unto Moses, The man [who was found picking up sticks on the sabbath] shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones.'

ok, man picks up sticks (to make a fire, living?) on a sunday, therefore he should die..... have i lost you yet? hopfully not cuase Exodus 23:7 says somthing that contradicts Numbers: 'The innocent and righteous slay thou not. '
you can say that the man is guilty for living the life he wanted to, but really he isnt. God in this instant is EVIL, he demands complete domination over his 'children' without comprimise rather like a dictator.

If God is a dictator and we are saying we should follow him (and in turn be granted 'salvation') blindly, you have already damnmed youself for saying: "That doesn't always coincide with our interests". You're quite blatantly disagreeing with god (i would get suntan lotion ready buddy ).



Also to finish up: Your argument was already moot when you said: 'Nature is beautiful, good and bad.' Cuase you already said: 'God is always good.' Because your blible told you essentialy that nature is an extention of god (ergo he created it), you have contradicted yourself by saying god is both good and evil (after saying he is absolute good).

So before we continue....tell me is god good or evil?

(April 8, 2009 at 4:39 am)leo-rcc Wrote: I would't call that gratitude but a realization that you are more fortunate than others. I see nothing to be grateful for.

I can go for that.

(April 8, 2009 at 6:06 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(April 6, 2009 at 5:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 6, 2009 at 4:48 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Who would I be grateful to? If I was rescued yes, I;d be very grateful to those who rescued me and who offered me help and comfort in my time of need but if I simply survived who exactly would I be grateful to? I'd be happy to have survived, consider myself lucky but grateful? I don't think so.

Do you have to be grateful to someone? Why can't you just be grateful yourself, alone. this is what I meant.

Why would I? I'd simply consider myself lucky.

Lucky implies superstition. I don't think 'grateful' works as you've highlighted. I didn't mean it in relation to something external, and I said that.

(April 8, 2009 at 6:06 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(April 7, 2009 at 3:36 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(April 5, 2009 at 3:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't have a god and as has been said to you before your "god of nature" is pointless since you seem to be giving something a name which already has one, one that is perfectly adequate.

You just define a God so I call that yours. It isn't mine. Nature isn't God, but as God is in everything, God is in Nature. i.e. nature doesn't define God.

More fool you then ... I have no god, period!

You have no god yet you put a description of a god forward. I think I'm justified in addressing your description.

(April 8, 2009 at 6:59 am)Earthwarden Wrote:

(April 7, 2009 at 2:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: . God is the whole thing rather than a micro event. God is always good. That doesn't always coincide with our interests. It'd be egotistical to think otherwise. Nature is beautiful, good and bad.

If god is always good, explain all of the genocide described in the bible. Countless innocents 'died' (of course im agreeing what take place in the bible is true for the sake of argument) for the sake of what is 'good'? Because the bible demands of us to follow the example of god are we to randomly destory each other or go to hell becuase we want to live the life we want to?

Like I've said, I don't see death as necessarily bad. Yeah we feel sad when other humans die. Nazi genocide was awful, yet we use it to learn a lesson. The genocide wasn't good, but the lesson is good.

(April 8, 2009 at 6:59 am)Earthwarden Wrote: Your god seem to be full of emotion making judgements randomly rather like a Dragonforce riff (for those of you who dont know: http://www.clevver.com/music/video/14037...lames.html). For example:

Numbers 15:35
'And the Lord said unto Moses, The man [who was found picking up sticks on the sabbath] shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones.'

ok, man picks up sticks (to make a fire, living?) on a sunday, therefore he should die..... have i lost you yet?

Nope. A society places a lot of emphasis on everyone following the rules. It reads like it would be a very obvious visible protest. The society took on with mortal seriousness there new rules. These rulings are superseded by Jesus in the gospels.

(April 8, 2009 at 6:59 am)Earthwarden Wrote: hopfully not cuase Exodus 23:7 says somthing that contradicts Numbers: 'The innocent and righteous slay thou not. '
you can say that the man is guilty for living the life he wanted to, but really he isnt. God in this instant is EVIL, he demands complete domination over his 'children' without comprimise rather like a dictator.

I think it's saying God can judge, people can't. If they're convicted so strongly of gods will they kill. In their own strength their instructed not to.

(April 8, 2009 at 6:59 am)Earthwarden Wrote: If God is a dictator and we are saying we should follow him (and in turn be granted 'salvation') blindly, you have already damnmed youself for saying: "That doesn't always coincide with our interests". You're quite blatantly disagreeing with god (i would get suntan lotion ready buddy ).

I'm not saying we should follow him blindly. Neither is the Bible. No - God's actions don't necessarily coincide with our interests. My statement is consistent I believe.

(April 8, 2009 at 6:59 am)Earthwarden Wrote: Also to finish up: Your argument was already moot when you said: 'Nature is beautiful, good and bad.' Cuase you already said: 'God is always good.' Because your blible told you essentialy that nature is an extention of god (ergo he created it), you have contradicted yourself by saying god is both good and evil (after saying he is absolute good).

So before we continue....tell me is god good or evil?

You missed it: Nature is beautiful, good and bad. Nature is good, both good & bad. Nature is always good.

God is good.