Holy texts should be respected by scholars

[superluminal]

Naah! You're perfect, wouldn't change one hair on your head!

Once again. Tingly.

 

[S.A.M.]

Better than grouchy, right ?

 

[Zephyr]

Awesome.

That's fine, I'm happy being a flip-flopping quantum-tunneling fence-posting opinionless pussy. I have relatively little morality to begin with. Things often just are.

Isn't that close to Buddhism's view?

 

[LiveInFaith]

Super,
Why God let innocent be killed? Why God kill using earthquakes and tsunami? Why God make all of these, made us and places where we live to kill each other? Why are we here?

Those cannot be explained, neither by theist nor atheist. As you tried to say that God is useless because evertyhing is the same with or without It, you may change the word 'God' into 'universe', you will find the 'WHY' question, which is out of science to produce adequate underlying base. Then we may feel we miss something in our very existence.

As for faith, in the existence of God, that's just it.
Beyond ratio to questioning anything directly about It, all questions should go toward It's creation. That's is, "HOW" question; is all science about; explaining after facts.

 

[Zephyr]

That's not the point and you know it. Resorting to scriptural bludgeoning will not help.

Muslims woke up one morning, read the rules, and blew up a subway. A bus. Some buildings. The point is obviously that they are free to make that choice, evil or not.

How does god explain to the innocents why they are dead? How does the idea of a god make any difference if it can do nothing to protect the innocent from the evil. If humans have to do all the work, what is the place of a god? The obvious answer is that it's just us and our own natures we have to deal with.

Superluminal, do you think there are absolute ways to quantify 'good' and 'evil'? That in itself is the core of many religions.

The thing is, the Muslims blowing up a subway didn't do it only because it was written. They did it because they felt their country needed to be woken up and shown it was participating in actions they thought were wrong. Ultimately, they thought they were doing good. Almost no human does something that they themselves consider evil - even in the worst cases, they will believe they've chosen the best of a set of bad options.

 

[LiveInFaith]

I have this question regarding rationality :

When we think something is beyond ratio,
- how if we treat it in irrational way? Faith in this case. Sounds "the act of doing irrationality" is rational to me; following the fact that nothing ratio can do about it.
- Or, as one post I found in this forum, said, simply not to ask. It's pointless.
- Or, there is nothing beyond ratio, someday all things would be having explanations. This seems a belief to me.

 

[SnakeLord]

Sam..

Why are there hungry people?

You asked this question a couple of pages ago. You then went on to answer that there are hungry people because "people would rather spend billions of dollars on war than a few millions on peace."

You know, England alone, (and we're just a small little island), gives hundreds of millions to help third world countries every year. I'm sure if you add that to donations from other 'well off' countries, you'd see that most would rather spend that money to help others. Now, here is the thing....

The only reason our countries are 'well off', and the only reason these third world people are starving... is because they live in a place where nothing grows, where disease is rife, where it never rains. Needless to say, "people" had nothing to do with this. Your god created all the diseases - for one purpose only, and created the planet in such way where a massive portion of people have no choice but to starve.

Here's a couple of questions:

Why create mosquitos that bite, infect and kill indiscriminately?
Why not provide some rain - thus allowing crop to grow?

With every step, us "people" fight against god and his 'design'. We try and eradicate his creations, (mosquitos/disease etc), and yet when we do, you religious folk thank the one that made them in the first place. To quote Twain:

Just so with diseases. If science exterminates a disease which has been working for God, it is God that gets the credit, and all the pulpits break into grateful advertising-raptures and call attention to how good he is! Yes, he has done it. Perhaps he has waited a thousand years before doing it. That is nothing; the pulpit says he was thinking about it all the time. When exasperated men rise up and sweep away an age-long tyranny and set a nation free, the first thing the delighted pulpit does is to advertise it as God's work, and invite the people to get down on their knees and pour out their thanks to him for it. And the pulpit says with admiring emotion, "Let tyrants understand that the Eye that never sleeps is upon them; and let them remember that the Lord our God will not always be patient, but will loose the whirlwinds of his wrath upon them in his appointed day."

They forget to mention that he is the slowest mover in the universe; that his Eye that never sleeps, might as well, since it takes it a century to see what any other eye would see in a week; that in all history there is not an instance where he thought of a noble deed first, but always thought of it just a little after somebody else had thought of it and done it. He arrives then, and annexes the dividend.

I am absolutely sick to the core that you sit there blaming humanity that with every move is trying to undo all the damage made by your god.

 

[LiveInFaith]

Who understands why there should be mosquitos? and bacteries? and virus?
Are all those iving being should be eradicated? what about food chain?

And why not there rain to allow crop to grow? why not make crop grow without rain?

Still, food chain is not answering why; it explains the mechanism and roles of those living being; but why they exist in the form they are?

While questioning God why, It gave us all resources to think and to act in dealing with those matters.

 

[Zephyr]

The only reason our countries are 'well off', and the only reason these third world people are starving... is because they live in a place where nothing grows, where disease is rife, where it never rains. Needless to say, "people" had nothing to do with this.

Isn't that a bit oversimplified? Zimbabwe used to be a bread-basket. Now it's a basket case. After years of Mugabe, people are starving, and the government is so poor it would print more money ... except it can't afford to.

That seems like a man-made disaster to me.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam..

You asked this question a couple of pages ago. You then went on to answer that there are hungry people because "people would rather spend billions of dollars on war than a few millions on peace."

Yes; I was commenting on the prorities of people today.

You know, England alone, (and we're just a small little island), gives hundreds of millions to help third world countries every year. I'm sure if you add that to donations from other 'well off' countries, you'd see that most would rather spend that money to help others.

Aid:

http://www.thezambian.com/reports/aid.aspx

many rich nations are failing to meet long-term development assistance targets.
In a 2002 United Nations development conference in Monterrey, Mexico, the world's wealthiest countries agreed to increase development aid to 0.7 percent of national income.

In 2003, the United States gave 0.15 percent of its national income in development assistance, the lowest percentage of any wealthy country, according to figures from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The UK donated only 0.34 percent of its national income to development assistance in 2003


Debt:

The developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants.


For the poorest countries (approximately 60), $550 billion has been paid in both principal and interest over the last three decades, on $540bn of loans, and yet there is still a $523 billion dollar debt burden.

Trade:

Take the Democratic Republic of Congo. Thirty-two corporations, all of them based in G8 countries, dominate the exploitation of this deeply impoverished, minerals-rich country where millions have died in the “cause” of 200 years of imperialism. In Ivory Coast, three G8 companies control 95% of the processing and export of cocoa, the main resource. The profits of Unilever, a British company long in Africa, are a third larger than Mozambique's GDP. One US company, Monsanto — of genetic engineering notoriety — controls 52% of South Africa's maize seed, that country's staple food.

The only reason our countries are 'well off', and the only reason these third world people are starving... is because they live in a place where nothing grows, where disease is rife, where it never rains. Needless to say, "people" had nothing to do with this. Your god created all the diseases - for one purpose only, and created the planet in such way where a massive portion of people have no choice but to starve.

European trade policies:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/FoodDumping/FoodFirst/Consequence7.asp


http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/2003_09_04_EU_barriers_kill_PR.htm


Ten Myths about Hunger:

http://www.coc.org/pdfs/ej/tenmyths.pdf

Here's a couple of questions:

Why create mosquitos that bite, infect and kill indiscriminately?
Why not provide some rain - thus allowing crop to grow?

Why instead of blaming God and religion for everything that goes wrong in the world, do scientific people not look at the evidence carefully before making up their minds?

 

[thedevilsreject]

Why instead of blaming God and religion for everything that goes wrong in the world, do scientific people not look at the evidence carefully before making up their minds?

and why do religious people always say that religion is the solution to the worlds problems

 

[S.A.M.]

and why do religious people always say that religion is the solution to the worlds problems

Well I'm not one of them.

 

[SnakeLord]

Isn't that a bit oversimplified?

Not exactly, no. I don't contest that leaders can do bad jobs, or people can make a mess of things, but when a country naturally has low resources, food and high disease - you can hardly blame Mugabe or anyone else. When looking at it, Mugabe improved education and health, and was indeed publically voted number 3 in the top 100 Africans.

-----

The UK donated only 0.34 percent of its national income to development assistance in 2003

What would you like us to give away? Although health care is free for us, it still has to be paid for, as does housing immigrants, etc etc etc. You think the UK doesn't have it's own debts?

- Just under 1 in 4 people in the UK – or nearly 13 million people – live in poverty, according to the latest figures. This includes nearly 1 in 3 children (almost 4 million).

- About 9.5 million people can’t afford adequate housing – heated, free from damp, and in a decent state of decoration

- Eighteen per cent of children go without two or more items that the majority of the population says are necessities, such as adequate clothing, toys, or three meals a day

(Oxfamgb.org)

- There are 600,000 children under three living in poverty and only 42,740 free or subsidised childcare places for disadvantaged families

(news.bbc.co.uk)

So sam, how much have you donated to the UK?

The developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants.

- For every $1 received in grant aid, low income countries pay: $2.30

(jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk)

- For every £1 the Third World receives in aid, it pays back £3 in debt repayments

(theopenmind.org.uk)

$13 dollars heh?

Why instead of blaming God and religion for everything that goes wrong in the world, do scientific people not look at the evidence carefully before making up their minds?

Now now, don't be silly. You're seemingly under the impression that each country doesn't have it's own debt and costs - and think that they should just hand it all over to anyone that comes calling - who are generally only calling because their land cannot support them - (no rain, disease, starved livestock etc). My statement was to say that you cannot blame people for lack of rain or disease. Indeed science has been trying to eradicate those god created diseases in order to save people and make life better. And yes, some scientists are even trying to find out ways of controlling weather, (New Scientist - can't remember issue numer, sometime last month).

The weather and disease, to a religious person - must have been made by a god. It is then asked why that god made those diseases, (which are there to specifically, and usually painfully, kill people), and why there are parts of this planet where plants do not grow and people cannot survive.

Yes, we can hand out gazillions to these places - but that doesn't negate the questions I asked that you didn't answer. Try again.

 

[Zephyr]

Not exactly, no. I don't contest that leaders can do bad jobs, or people can make a mess of things, but when a country naturally has low resources, food and high disease - you can hardly blame Mugabe or anyone else. When looking at it, Mugabe improved education and health, and was indeed publically voted number 3 in the top 100 Africans.

Indeed, he used to be a great leader. But I don't think you can blame disease or resources when a country that was producing food turns into a famine pit. Don't you think his badly managed policies of forcible farm reallocation had something to do with it?

 

[S.A.M.]

-----

What would you like us to give away? Although health care is free for us, it still has to be paid for, as does housing immigrants, etc etc etc. You think the UK doesn't have it's own debts?

You do have your head very firmly entrenched in the sand don't you?

The Adam Smith Institute, the ultra-rightwing lobby group, now receives more money from Britain's Department for International Development (DfID) than Liberia or Somalia, two of the most desperate nations on Earth.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0106-01.htm



'To date the money spent or set aside for the war against terror including in Afghanistan and for our action in Iraq is £5.5 billion. I can tell the house that for Iraq £2 billion has been carried forward into the Special Reserve for 2003-4. And I believe it prudent and right today to set aside a further £500 million for this year, and an extra £300 million for next year: raising our allocations for the war against terrorism and for action in Iraq to £6.3 billion.' (Pre-Budget Report 2003)


In the 2003 Budget the government set aside £3 billion to cover “the full costs of the UK’s military obligations” in Iraq[1]. In the past three years the amount allocated to this ‘Special Reserve’ has steadily increased, and with an extra £800 million in this year’s Budget the total is now over £6.4 billion. A recent Freedom of Information request suggest that over £4.5bn of this reserve has been spent on the conflict in Iraq. This is in addition to recent increases in general military spending. This briefing investigates the financial costs of the Iraq conflict to the UK taxpayer.

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/publications/235

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

$13 dollars heh?

The World Bank has admitted that the developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants. Tens of billions of dollars that could be used for investments in water systems, infrastructure to rural communities, education, and health care are instead being used to pay off debts to Western banks. At the same time, pro-corporate trade policies have the peculiar effect of opening markets for multinationals to sell products to developing countries (that help put small farmers there out of business), yet at the same time also allow them to export other foods to the industrialized world from poor countries where malnutrition already exists, an activity that many economists do not seem to have much trouble with.

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Dec2004/cainpr1204.html
http://www.africaaction.org/action/debtpos_text.htm

Now now, don't be silly. You're seemingly under the impression that each country doesn't have it's own debt and costs - and think that they should just hand it all over to anyone that comes calling - who are generally only calling because their land cannot support them - (no rain, disease, starved livestock etc). My statement was to say that you cannot blame people for lack of rain or disease. Indeed science has been trying to eradicate those god created diseases in order to save people and make life better. And yes, some scientists are even trying to find out ways of controlling weather, (New Scientist - can't remember issue numer, sometime last month).

Did you read the links in my post?

You missed some very significant points about natural resources, trade policies and international corporations.

Myth 1: Not Enough Food to Go Around
Myth 2: Nature's to Blame for Famine, etc.

http://www.foodfirst.org/12myths

The weather and disease, to a religious person - must have been made by a god. It is then asked why that god made those diseases, (which are there to specifically, and usually painfully, kill people), and why there are parts of this planet where plants do not grow and people cannot survive.

So you think we should sit on our butts and wait for a miracle? And avoid all social responsibilities?

Yes, we can hand out gazillions to these places - but that doesn't negate the questions I asked that you didn't answer. Try again.

Still not reading the fine print
(So you still think self-delusion is a theistic attribute?)

AID
DEBT
TRADE POLICIES
read about all 3 not just one.

 

[SnakeLord]

You do have your head very firmly entrenched in the sand don't you?

So, you're saying that the UK doesn't have it's own debts and costs? I asked you two questions, both of which you failed to answer, instead giving me some worthless crap about sand and heads. Here they are again for the last time before I just start using pictures:

What would you like us to give away?

Do you think the UK doesn't have it's own debts?

Did you read the links in my post?

Yeah, but they're of little relevance to my statement that you cannot blame people for the weather or disease.

So you think we should sit on our butts and wait for a miracle? And avoid all social responsibilities?

Another fine example of you avoiding the question. No, I don't think we should sit on our butts. No, I don't think we should avoid all social responsibilities.

See, easy to answer questions. So here are mine for the third time:

- It is then asked why that god made those diseases, (which are there to specifically, and usually painfully, kill people), and why there are parts of this planet where plants do not grow and people cannot survive.

Can you read English?

Still not reading the fine print

Still not answering two very simple questions.

Wakey wakey..

 

[S.A.M.]

So, you're saying that the UK doesn't have it's own debts and costs? I asked you two questions, both of which you failed to answer, instead giving me some worthless crap about sand and heads. Here they are again for the last time before I just start using pictures:

What would you like us to give away?

Do you think the UK doesn't have it's own debts?



Yeah, but they're of little relevance to my statement that you cannot blame people for the weather or disease.



Another fine example of you avoiding the question. No, I don't think we should sit on our butts. No, I don't think we should avoid all social responsibilities.

See, easy to answer questions. So here are mine for the third time:

- It is then asked why that god made those diseases, (which are there to specifically, and usually painfully, kill people), and why there are parts of this planet where plants do not grow and people cannot survive.

Can you read English?



Still not answering two very simple questions.

Wakey wakey..

I can see that you are going into self-denial here.

Man has social responsibilities; God gives the resources but man has to take the initiative to use those resources and fulfil his social responsibilities.

There are enough resources in all countries to feed the people in those countries ( you are obviously not reading the links). The problem is that those resources are being stolen from them by the so-called secular countries, in the guise of aid.

If these resources were utilized for the benefit of the local people there would be no famine and diseases would be controlled.

People have survived in Africa from the beginning of civilization (read some history)

Shame!

 

[SnakeLord]

I can see that you are going into self-denial here.

I can see the more I ask you to answer the questions I have posed, the more you just tend to give worthless, petty insults. Once more: please answer the questions.

Man has social responsibilities

I never claimed otherwise.

God gives the resources but man has to take the initiative to use those resources and fulfil his social responsibilities.

And here it is once again.. Why did that same god create diseases with the express goal of killing humans?

Why create tapeworms and the like?

Why create a large portion of the planet where no rain falls and crop can hardly grow?

There are enough resources in all countries to feed the people in those countries ( you are obviously not reading the links)

You are obviously not reading the question. As I stated to Zephyr - there certainly can be bad leaders, and people that mess things up - but that is not an answer to the questions I asked you.

People have survived in Africa from the beginning of civilization (read some history)

I never stated anything to the contrary, (read some posts).

 

[S.A.M.]

And here it is once again.. Why did that same god create diseases with the express goal of killing humans?

God made all creation for man to know, to increase his knowledge.

Diseases have cures which we research and resolve.

Why create tapeworms and the like?

Why not? He also provided the means for remedy, we only had to search for it.

Why create a large portion of the planet where no rain falls and crop can hardly grow?

He provided multiple resources for many reasons; some may be useful now, some in the future. Who knows what the purpose is, until we have knowledge enough to analyze its importance?

 

[SnakeLord]

God made all creation for man to know, to increase his knowledge.

So, you're saying that god created these disease just so we'd have something to learn about?

Diseases have cures which we research and resolve.

Some do, some don't. That doesn't in any way contribute to why they would have been created in the first place.

Take for instance the extremely rare CIPA? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain_with_anhidrosis)

Why create that?

What about progeria? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progeria)

Why create that?

You're saying your god created these just to give people something to study in their spare time? Fair enough.

Why not?

Answering a question with another question heh. You answer the why, then I'll give you the why not.

He provided multiple resources for many reasons; some may be useful now, some in the future. Who knows what the purpose is, until we have knowledge enough to analyze its importance?

Fair enough, I'll accept that - even though the whole notion is daft.