Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(December 13, 2009 at 2:29 am)Tiberius Wrote: Science doesn't "let" it happen. Science tries to prevent it. Same with the spread of disease, deaths through natural disasters, etc, etc.
Yet science in exactly this way has led to the current crisis of overpopulation that threatens to end human and most other life on this planet.
Perhaps in your version of the perfect God he would create a physical reality where living things were immortal (with everything that follows with that). It always seems to me to be a stance of disillusion with this physical reality, which I don't get. Why not face up to reality and hold a world view that lets you think positively?
December 13, 2009 at 7:19 am (This post was last modified: December 13, 2009 at 7:22 am by tackattack.)
(December 13, 2009 at 6:18 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:
Tiberius Wrote:It is easier for me to come to terms with a God who hates his creation (or simply doesn't care / doesn't see humanity as anything special)...
Like a Purple Rabbit? Kneel you fool...
(December 13, 2009 at 3:51 am)tackattack Wrote: I'll add this unrelated tid bit. The proof I have in my Life are a series or random occurences outside of my control which lead to defining moments in my life. Being in the wrong place with a fix-a-flat at teh right time, finding a $20 and not 1 hour later taking 3 homeless to dinner. Theese are simple examples and theres a lot more and some are much more complex.
What about the most simple explanation around: shit happens!
If these little incidents add up in your head to a god, then why don't you do some summation on things like diseases, natural disaster, famine or even the event of missing toilet paper when you're taking a dump?
Because logically there is only so much coincidence that can be stacked upon another before you question is there a bigger design and who designed it. It goes back to the level of proof arguement. There's so much of my "experience" that doesn't come out in a falsifiable fashion, yet was real and perceptable to me. I thought science or evolution could explain away my belief, but that didn't explain it well enough for me. It breaks believability, in my life, that 80% of events in my life where I had just the right tool, reference or talent to suit a need that bettered someone else were randomness. It doesn't make sense to me statistically. Sure if it was closer to 50% or less I could see a need to reevaluate or skepticise, but that's not my case. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree and have a beer.
What would you like me to summize on? Disease ... just another organism on this earth that evolves physically similar to us without social structure. We cease to get stronger and develop it continues to get stronger. Science helps us catch up when we fall behind. Do I really need to summize where natural disasters come from? Missing toilet paper? Perhaps you should have filled it before you sat.
Seems to me that a God can: 1) Stop people from suffering, but does not. 2) end disease, but does not, 3) end death but does not, 4) end poverty but does not, 5) end starvation, but does not ...meets the definition of evil.
Looks like to me like the devil is God in exile. I would worship your god, if he was nicer.
"On Earth as it is in Heaven, the Cosmic Roots of the Bible" available on the Amazon.
(December 13, 2009 at 2:29 am)Tiberius Wrote: Science doesn't "let" it happen. Science tries to prevent it. Same with the spread of disease, deaths through natural disasters, etc, etc.
Yet science in exactly this way has led to the current crisis of overpopulation that threatens to end human and most other life on this planet.
Perhaps in your version of the perfect God he would create a physical reality where living things were immortal (with everything that follows with that). It always seems to me to be a stance of disillusion with this physical reality, which I don't get. Why not face up to reality and hold a world view that lets you think positively?
Firstly, I remain skeptical that overpopulation is a "crisis" or that we are indeed overpopulated. The great thing about nature is that populations always balance themselves out. If there isn't enough food to go around, the population goes down. Yes, science allowed us to live longer, but it also told us that having a lot of children was a bad idea. It is religion, not science, that is a larger factor. The Catholic church is the largest religion on the planet, and they abhor the use of condoms, going so far as to spread the malicious lie that they cause AIDS.
Science has promoted birth control, has taught people how to prevent the spread of STDs. It is religion that has tried to thwart these attempts, and it is a shame that most people still seem to think religion holds a higher purpose.
As for my vision of a perfect God, it would be one which didn't exist. I don't see a need for a God in order to live my life, or think positively. I am capable of doing that quite well without it.
(December 8, 2009 at 4:05 am)tackattack Wrote: WOW. There's is a lot of good information on this website. I should have probably lurked for a bit before I started posting. I'll probably be regurgitating many of the same points and questions already on here so I appreciate your patience with me on this matter. Here's a quote from a thread that got me thinking. "(God)thinking being should exist without a body to nurture and protect."
Here's my question: What does an atheist believe (or not believe) that God stands (or doesn't stand) for?
(December 13, 2009 at 3:08 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Firstly, I remain skeptical that overpopulation is a "crisis" or that we are indeed overpopulated. The great thing about nature is that populations always balance themselves out. If there isn't enough food to go around, the population goes down. Yes, science allowed us to live longer, but it also told us that having a lot of children was a bad idea. It is religion, not science, that is a larger factor. The Catholic church is the largest religion on the planet, and they abhor the use of condoms, going so far as to spread the malicious lie that they cause AIDS.
Science has promoted birth control, has taught people how to prevent the spread of STDs. It is religion that has tried to thwart these attempts, and it is a shame that most people still seem to think religion holds a higher purpose.
As for my vision of a perfect God, it would be one which didn't exist. I don't see a need for a God in order to live my life, or think positively. I am capable of doing that quite well without it.
Did you see David Attenborough on TV last week? According to him overpopulation is what we should be solely concerned with. Nature naturally balanced population to about 1bn worldwide until the intervention of science prevented deaths. Over the past century the worlds population has exploded to 7bn projected to reach 9bn by 2050. Religion, although contributory, has not had much impact.
The Catholic position on condoms is that it promotes promiscuity to send a message that having promiscuous sex is fine. Convincing people not to be promiscuous would be more beneficial in the reduction of the spread of AIDS.
I'm not suggesting that you need God to think positively. I just think it ironic that you hold this against God like this physical reality is far from ideal. If you're positive for this reality, then in my book that's the same assaying you're happy with it should it have been created by God. IOW stop the bellyaching.
(December 13, 2009 at 7:19 am)tackattack Wrote: Because logically there is only so much coincidence that can be stacked upon another before you question is there a bigger design and who designed it.
Coincidences take place billions of times a second. It's a coincidence that your parents met at the right time and had sex at the right time to create you. One hour off or even a minute off could mean you wouldn't be here right now. The fact that your parent's parents met and had sex at the right time to create your parents who met at the right time and had sex at the right time to create you. If they had sex an hour off someone else would of been born instead of you. All this is by sheer coincidence. I see no reason to think there is some kind of designer if there is no evidence of one. There are no limits for coincidence. Coincidence/chances is just one more thing human beings have a common lack of understanding of. Jumping to a god conclusion is just silly. You don't need any god for billions of coincidences to take place. Lack of understanding can often lead to unreasonable conclusions.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
(December 13, 2009 at 4:19 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Did you see David Attenborough on TV last week? According to him overpopulation is what we should be solely concerned with. Nature naturally balanced population to about 1bn worldwide until the intervention of science prevented deaths. Over the past century the worlds population has exploded to 7bn projected to reach 9bn by 2050. Religion, although contributory, has not had much impact.
So an argument from authority straight out of the box. The main reasoning these people come to is "we haven't got enough food". The world is hardly overpopulated, we have more than enough room for everyone, but not enough food for everyone. So it's not "overpopulation" at all. However, science has come up with ways to increase crop supply, to genetically engineer foods, to make foods safer, etc etc. The lunatics and religions of the world have argued against all this with new age "organic" shite.
Quote:The Catholic position on condoms is that it promotes promiscuity to send a message that having promiscuous sex is fine. Convincing people not to be promiscuous would be more beneficial in the reduction of the spread of AIDS.
No, the Catholic church takes its position from the pope, who promotes the lie that condoms spread AIDS. Convincing people not to be promiscuous is a good thing, I don't deny it. However, the use of condoms is too! Just look at the number of "abstinence only" children end up pregnant and you'll realise that teaching this kind of thing as the "only way forward" is ridiculous. People don't want to be abstinent. It isn't natural.
Quote:I'm not suggesting that you need God to think positively. I just think it ironic that you hold this against God like this physical reality is far from ideal. If you're positive for this reality, then in my book that's the same assaying you're happy with it should it have been created by God. IOW stop the bellyaching.
When did I say I was positive for this reality? There are many things wrong with this reality. I am capable about thinking positive about my life...without God...
