Enmos
Valued Senior Member
or assume?
What was my assumption ?
or assume?
come on redwards, you know i don't read books. i mean, you know the pharmaceutical companies have the fda in their back pocket. everything is about money. why wouldn't the medical community be too? i mean come on!!!! keeping people sick and treating the symptoms is big business. isn't that the most obvious thing ever? the goverment controls the masses, doctors, hospitals, and drug companies make a ton of money, give the politicians a cut, everybody's happy.
What was my assumption ?
yeah, i mean at this point it's encoded into our genes, and it's causes are by the millions in our air, food, and water supply, and those are just the ones we know about.
Thanks, god of Lori! Keep up the good work.
He would have to exist first..
"god of lori"? jesus christ.
and you want blame god for this shit?! this is the direct consequence of greed, sloth, and lust for power and money.
you seem to be saying quite directly what you assume to be the truth about god's existence ....That's not an assumption. It isn't any kind of statement about Gods existence or non-existence.
only by discarding the issue of free will or independence that the living entity is created withIf you use the argument that god is omniscient and benevolent, you must also accept the sordid along with the good when it comes to delivering blame or praise.
only by discarding the issue of free will or independence that the living entity is created with
you seem to be saying quite directly what you assume to be the truth about god's existence ....
meanwhile reductionist theories about consciousness are quite alright, huh?No I wasn't. I was just expressing, in my own backward way, that the OP is loaded. You can't make such a statement if there is no evidence of the premises.
At this point (or at any point for that matter) the statement "God should get rid of cancer" makes as much sense as saying "The invisible pink unicorn in the sky should get rid of cancer".
meanwhile reductionist theories about consciousness are quite alright, huh?
you may be a fundy atheist if ...yes, blame god while we keep perpetuating the same stupid shit that makes us all suffer.
you may be a fundy atheist if ...
You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want your ice-cream to be extra drippy.
I guess it tends to indicate that a common version of helping humanity (eg - clean up all the BS which we will dish out to ourselves in the very next instance) is not the same as godsGood. I wish all theists could see the absurdity of their completely contradictory (almost disturbed) stance as well as you do.
You tell us that god is responsible for the creation of the universe, has an interest in you personally, has interdicted throughout history in natural and human affairs.
But when someone poses a valid question about why dosen't god do "this or that" to help humanity, you meet it with childisly stupid analogies and completely dismiss the uncomfortable inquiry that clearly sticks in your craw.
Actually, they are.I guess it tends to indicate that a common version of helping humanity (eg - clean up all the BS which we will dish out to ourselves in the very next instance) is not the same as gods
:shrug:
(meanwhile those IPU and FSM arguments are poignant elaborations on the crux of the matter, eh?)
Interesting. I was working within the boundaries of the properties of your very own god(s) by asking a simple question about cancer, and given the awesome attributes of your god(s) why he might not eliminate it. And you proceed to tell me it's a rediculous question. And then bring up some irrelevant analogies that lie outside the scope of the completely consistent internal question I posed.You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.