thanks, god.

[fr0d0]

I actually said they could be grateful with or without a god. I also said later that perhaps 'grateful' was the wrong word. I've been over this.

[LukeMC]

2) Cotton Candy World (wasn't that a Madonna song? lol )
I think to want no suffering is a natural human desire. That doesn't fit what we've got. I'm just happy with what we've got. To turn this around: I thought this was something a lot of atheists believed too? If you want to have a full life and appreciate our universe for what it is, don't you have to turn a blind eye to the atrocities natural laws have caused as well as the good stuff? I think if you can answer that question then you've also answered the reasoning with God in the equation too.

To appreciate the universe for what it is, turning a blind eye to disasters is exactly what I shouldn't do. I accept that the universe is an unforgiving place with no worries about my life or well-being. I can't hold anybody accountable for this though. I can't point my finger and say "it's God's fault!" because I don't believe a god exists. My position is just to accept what the universe is in its beautiful and harsh purposelessness (is that a real word?).

From my standpoint, "good" and "evil" are purely animal constructs and we interpret events as they happen then move on. To add a God into the equation instills a purpose on the otherwise indifferent disasters and they are no longer just events, they are calculated events of intended terror with an actual purpose. In a universe where this is the case, God would be directly responsible for this. In a Godless universe I would deal with the event as something that couldn't be helped- end of story. In a world with a God I would be able to point my finger and say "you did this- you made this happen". I still hold the position that God is responsible for terrible events and therefore is not all good.

[fr0d0]

I think you can't have it both ways. Either you're a miserable git because shit happens, or you're a happy camper accepting that the universe is beautiful.

Nice conversing with you

[LukeMC]

but but but... no!

The universe is beautiful (my interpretation anyway) and bad things do happen. I'd be happy to say God is great for making the universe beautiful, but I'd also be very angry at him for purposefully taking away so many innocent lives in such cruel ways! Come on fr0d0, you know you want to agree with me here God is clearly not all good. He's responsible for some sheer carnage and he justifies it through beauty and fullness. No human being can get away with artistic murder- it isn't justified. Either God is indifferent to morals or God consider some evils to be justified.

[bozo]

Do you think this person really meant "thankyou God for killing everybody"? IMO all she was trying to say was that she was glad to be alive. Being 'thankful'; 'grateful' etc is what people say to express that. It's pretty meaningless.

Frodo, I disagree. Unfortunately for us atheists, lots of stuff from religion has become everyday speech. Saying " thank god " for all sorts of minor things is such an example. The case of surviving a natural disaster is something quite different, yet a recurring thing is for survivors to " give thanks to god " for saving them.
So I think this woman was doing just that, not being grateful but actually thanking the fiend that let her live but condemned the others to death.
That's why we're not that fond of god.

[LukeMC]

It would probably remedy the situation if people of religious convictions would actually think before they thank God directly for his intentional saving of their lives. While they aren't explicitly stating that they're thankful for other people dying, they are (however unintentionally) implying that God chose to save them but not the others. Because if God had an involvement in saving them (which is what some of these people actually believe) then he must have also chosen not to save the others.

[fr0d0]

but but but... no!

The universe is beautiful (my interpretation anyway) and bad things do happen. I'd be happy to say God is great for making the universe beautiful, but I'd also be very angry at him for purposefully taking away so many innocent lives in such cruel ways! Come on fr0d0, you know you want to agree with me here God is clearly not all good. He's responsible for some sheer carnage and he justifies it through beauty and fullness. No human being can get away with artistic murder- it isn't justified. Either God is indifferent to morals or God consider some evils to be justified.

I think we absolutely agree LukeMC. Your first line is perfect. The rest I think you seek to attribute too much to God. I don't think it can apply.

What you're really saying is: "The universe is beautiful (my interpretation anyway) and bad things do happen ...and I'm sad as a human at the sad stuff". I think that's all you can rationally say. God is nothing to do with it. You just don't define God accurately enough.

---

Do you think this person really meant "thankyou God for killing everybody"? IMO all she was trying to say was that she was glad to be alive. Being 'thankful'; 'grateful' etc is what people say to express that. It's pretty meaningless.

Frodo, I disagree. Unfortunately for us atheists, lots of stuff from religion has become everyday speech. Saying " thank god " for all sorts of minor things is such an example. The case of surviving a natural disaster is something quite different, yet a recurring thing is for survivors to " give thanks to god " for saving them.
So I think this woman was doing just that, not being grateful but actually thanking the fiend that let her live but condemned the others to death.
That's why we're not that fond of god.

If you follow my reasoning tho' bozo, you see that what you're defining as God isn't accurate. You seem to want a scape goat, not reason.

[Giff]

God is nothing to do with it. You just don't define God accurately enough.

How should you be able to define something that doesn't exist?

[fr0d0]

It would probably remedy the situation if people of religious convictions would actually think before they thank God directly for his intentional saving of their lives. While they aren't explicitly stating that they're thankful for other people dying, they are (however unintentionally) implying that God chose to save them but not the others. Because if God had an involvement in saving them (which is what some of these people actually believe) then he must have also chosen not to save the others.

You're assuming a lot though, and nothing backs up your logic, apart from superstition.

---

God is nothing to do with it. You just don't define God accurately enough.

How should you be able to define something that doesn't exist?

Why should you comment on it if you don't think it exists? I have faith that it does, therefore I have grounds to explore it.

You're talking about a specific definition of God, and aren't following the reasoning for that definition. Whether it exists or not is besides the point.

[Edwardo Piet]

Whether you believe in God or not - anyone is welcome to discuss it...
And how can you say fr0d0 as you did above "f you follow my reasoning tho' bozo, you see that what you're defining as God isn't accurate. You seem to want a scape goat, not reason."

You have no evidence of God and can have no better definiton than anyone else.
I use the definition of a supernatural creator basically - anything else is optional.

You don't know God's mind, you can't - you don't remotely know it. So isn't it a little bit arrogant of you to say bozo is using a scapegoat and is using the wrong defintion when who says that YOUR definition is right anyway?
There is no evidnece of God - who says that God wants this or that. Who's to say they've got the right definition.

If there's no evidence he exists who's to say he's good rather than neutral or evil for example? You don't know God - you can't know it's a scapegoat - you can't know 'the correct God definition' and you most certainly can't know God's mind.

EvF