God's injustice towards Adam and Eve

[ShaMan]

<snip>

...a loving God who has a purpose for every one of His creations...

'Purpose' indeed

[Statler Waldorf]

'Purpose' indeed

In your Universe those are just poorly nourished bags of water and tissue (that should have been destroyed in the womb of course) that you are simply outcompeting for resources and the opportunity to spread your genes into the gene pool for no real reason other than to perpetuate your own line of bags of water and tissue into the pointless and uncertain future. I wonder…why that picture bothers you so much then?

[ShaMan]

In your Universe those are just poorly nourished bags of water and tissue (that should have been destroyed in the womb of course) that you are simply outcompeting for resources and the opportunity to spread your genes into the gene pool for no real reason other than to perpetuate your own line of bags of water and tissue into the pointless and uncertain future. I wonder…why that picture bothers you so much then?

Maybe you could mine my past posts to see where I've ever said the things you think I believe. Let's see...

"Bag of meat" - Never said it.

"Just water and tissue" - Never said it.

"That should have been destroyed in the womb" - Never said it.

"Out-competing for resources" - Never said it.

"Spreading genes for no reason" - Never said it.

"Pointless uncertain future" - Never said it.


I never said that the picture bothered me or whether it did not. I'm simply curious about your version of god's 'purpose' for allowing his creation [which he obviously loves ] to suffer if he's as 'loving' as you claim.

Shall I group you in with Westborough Baptist Church as you've grouped me with a narrow margin of certain atheists? Shove your prejudice up Jesus' ass!

[Ryantology]

In your Universe those are just poorly nourished bags of water and tissue (that should have been destroyed in the womb of course) that you are simply outcompeting for resources and the opportunity to spread your genes into the gene pool for no real reason other than to perpetuate your own line of bags of water and tissue into the pointless and uncertain future. I wonder…why that picture bothers you so much then?

That's quite a funny response considering how closely it follows your long and boring gishgallop asserting over and over again that, in your universe, humans are just created objects that have no more right to exist than does any fictional character or inanimate object, and that this is happening to them only because they completely deserve it.

I don't wonder why the picture doesn't appear to bother you in the slightest.

[Brakeman]

In your Universe those are just poorly nourished bags of water and tissue (that should have been destroyed in the womb of course) that you are simply outcompeting for resources and the opportunity to spread your genes into the gene pool for no real reason other than to perpetuate your own line of bags of water and tissue into the pointless and uncertain future. I wonder…why that picture bothers you so much then?

We evolved to form an advanced "herd" mentality where we don't just care for our young like most all mammals, or our nearby neighbors like elephants, but also for far away and conceptual members of our species.

All without any help from little green elves, flying fairies, evil possessive demons, or Emo christian sky gods!

[Statler Waldorf]

You're a troll.

Nope, but I’ve been called worse on here.

Maybe you could mine my past posts to see where I've ever said the things you think I believe. Let's see...

If you’re a consistent atheist then there are certain things I know that you must believe. If you’re an inconsistent one then you’ve got some holes in your conceptual scheme.

"Bag of meat" - Never said it.

Neither did I.

"Just water and tissue" - Never said it.

If all that exists is matter (as atheists espouse), then why would a human being have any more transcendent value than any other material system?

"That should have been destroyed in the womb" - Never said it.

Why not? If there’s no life after death and no ultimate judgment for our actions then why not destroy those who would not live a life that we deemed “worth living” before they are born? I assume that’s why you posted the picture; you thought that their lives were horrible right?

"Out-competing" for resources - Never said it.

I assume that you’re not a malnourished as they.

"Spreading genes for no reason" - Never said it.

You’re not a Darwinist?

"Pointless uncertain future" - Never said it.

You know what tomorrow will bring and that there will even be a tomorrow? How?

Why does that picture bother me? Who said it did?

Of course it doesn’t, you’re an atheist. That’s my point; none of this means anything in an atheistic Universe.

I'm curious about your version of god's 'purpose' for allowing his creation [which he obviously loves ] to suffer if he's as 'loving' as you claim.

We’re fallen rebellious creatures. We all deserve to wake up in Hell. This means that every breath we take, every meal we have, every drink we have are all gracious gifts from God. No matter how painful, how horrific a person’s life may seem, it is always better than the fate they actually deserve. This grace was made possible by Christ’s work on the cross. It does not stop there though, God has a special love for his people and has given them eternal life and glorification. Many of those people live in Africa today and that is why the gospel has taken such strong roots there. A lifetime of hunger is worth an eternity with God. Those children were created in the image of God and that is precisely why they have transcendent value, and that is why we do so much to help them.

Shall I group you in with Westborough Baptist Church as you've grouped me with some other atheists? Shove your prejudice up Jesus' ass!

I have not grouped you in with anyone; I simply know what you ought to believe as a consistent atheist. If you’re going to claim the title you’re going to have to claim that baggage that comes with it. I am not sure why that touches such a nerve.

That's quite a funny response considering how closely it follows your long and boring gishgallop asserting over and over again that, in your universe, humans are just created objects that have no more right to exist than does any fictional character or inanimate object, and that this is happening to them only because they completely deserve it.

Why would a human have a right to exist in an atheistic Universe? Does a computer have a right to exist? Does a mountain? A planet? It’s all just matter my friend. Christianity gives humans a transcendent value because only they were created in the image of their creator.

I don't wonder why the picture doesn't appear to bother you in the slightest.

Where did I say it doesn’t? Christians are the ones actually doing something about it though.

“Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.” - Matthew Parris

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/3...-needs-god

We evolved to form an advanced "herd" mentality where we don't just care for our young like most all mammals, or our nearby neighbors like elephants, but also for far away and conceptual members of our species.

When we do not care for others in our species did we evolve that behavior as well?

[pocaracas]

... everything else... meh... presupposition, as usual.

The same old truths that everyone presupposes.

Not everyone... you go one "truth" farther...
And that truth is not self-evident.
Not like the presupposition that 1 is not zero.

Really? You tell something like this to Esq?

Yes of course, he was insisting that the Biblical view was somehow screwed up. Why would being the creation of a loving God who has a purpose for every one of His creations be more screwed up than being an accidental bag of mostly water without any purpose or design?

Come on, man... Occam's razor is just a guideline, not a Law of the Universe and beyond.

Where did I appeal to the law of parsimony? I always correct people on here when they try to use it to discern truth rather than its actual purpose.

Right here:

Or your parents wanted to have you because God ordained that they would. I think that is far more elegant than thinking that you’re just some freak cosmic accident without purpose.

Captain Barbosa, awesome.

Always!

[Statler Waldorf]

Not everyone... you go one "truth" farther...
And that truth is not self-evident.
Not like the presupposition that 1 is not zero.

No, everyone presupposes that God exists, some explicitly some implicitly but it’s impossible to formulate a cogent conceptual scheme without Him in there.

Right here:

Come on Pocaracas, you know that the law of parsimony deals with simplicity, not elegance. I also never tried to argue that my view was true because it was more elegant, I was simply arguing against the assertion that it was somehow “screwed up”.

[pocaracas]

Not everyone... you go one "truth" farther...
And that truth is not self-evident.
Not like the presupposition that 1 is not zero.

No, everyone presupposes that God exists, some explicitly some implicitly but it’s impossible to formulate a cogent conceptual scheme without Him in there.

You sound like a muslim claiming everyone is born with the concept of god ingrained.
No, that's not in accordance with the available data. A person born and raised with no contact with any religious idea will, for the most part, have no notion of any god, hence no presupposition of it.
I say "for the most part" because someone must have come up with the notion of a god, so it's not impossible for such a child to come up with it again.

And yes it is possible to formulate a "cogent conceptual scheme" without any god in the picture.

Right here:

Come on Pocaracas, you know that the law of parsimony deals with simplicity, not elegance. I also never tried to argue that my view was true because it was more elegant, I was simply arguing against the assertion that it was somehow “screwed up”.

Very well...I missed that detail...
The way things were written in that sentence seemed to hint that you were applying Occam's Razor... my bad... carry on.

[ShaMan]

We all deserve to wake up in Hell.

Christians? Most I've met, yes.

All of your presuppositions about my worldview are borne in your mind and are most likely reflective of your overall prejudices in general. Your insistent need to wrathfully apply them to me and other Human beings whom you've never met is a sure sign of a deeply deluded mind bent on control with narcissistic tendencies that must be fed by a form of metaphysical 'justice' to make you feel superior to others.