THANK GOD for the earthquake

[lightgigantic]

Apparently so.

(E.g. Capitalism has killed more people than communism; it just takes capitalism a bit longer, so it doesn't seem so outrageous.)

Then it doesn't makes sense. How does a singular cause (ie an earthquake) translate as a more direct personal involvement of an omnipotent god than a singular cause disguised through a multiplicity of events (ie heart disease), even thought he casualties and of the later is tenfold more and occurs on a daily basis

It would appear so, yes. (Not my own opinion, mind you, I am trying to get the point some atheists are making.)

If the killed seem to have little or nothing in common, or if what they do have in common seems superficial, then the killer is seen as unjust, insane.

So if mortality visits everyone equally (in the sense that no one avoids it) how is it that drawing up demographics of creed or whatever is not superficial?

No, the argument is that one gets killed because one was bad.
(Hence it seems utterly unjust that infants get killed too, since there is the conviction that infants are innocent.)

So death is ultimately a question of one's badness catching up with one?

And this explains why young people are not bad and old people are (since teh mortality rates are skewered like that)

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't know, it's not my belief system. Maybe every untimely death is punishment for something, but then one would have to wonder why he punishes the evil and the good.

If you are using the belief system as a launching pad for your critique, you own it.

IOW if you are saying that death is always a consequence of punishment, and use this premise in your critique, any weathering caused by an analysis of the premise is also worn by you.

IOW a critique of a faulty definition of an omnipotent god is just as fallacious as a faulty definition of an omnipotent god.

 

[quinnsong]

Then it doesn't makes sense. How does a singular cause (ie an earthquake) translate as a more direct personal involvement of an omnipotent god than a singular cause disguised through a multiplicity of events (ie heart disease), even thought he casualties and of the later is tenfold more and occurs on a daily basis




It would appear so, yes. (Not my own opinion, mind you, I am trying to get the point some atheists are making.)

If the killed seem to have little or nothing in common, or if what they do have in common seems superficial, then the killer is seen as unjust, insane.



So death is ultimately a question of one's badness catching up with one?

And this explains why young people are not bad and old people are (since teh mortality rates are skewered like that)

This argument does not exist for atheists! This argument is really for theists that need to understand their god.

 

[lightgigantic]

This argument does not exist for atheists! This argument is really for theists that need to understand their god.

This argument is certainly there for atheists who problematize the act as evidence for an "evil" god or whatever

 

[quinnsong]

This argument is certainly there for atheists who problematize the act as evidence for an "evil" god or whatever

An athiest by definition does not believe in god period! Evil or good.

 

[lightgigantic]

Then they are resigned to mass death. We should not and can not do anything about it. We should continue to build nuclear reactors, towns by the sea, inadequate sea walls. This kind of attitude will kill people.

kind of like saying that since we cannot control the rain there is no point carrying an umbrella
:shrug:

The counter to that is that Japanese building codes saved millions of lives in Tokyo, which proves that mankind's works can defeat God's.

You mean it was god's work to get a higher head count?
Whats the mchanics behind your thinking?

 

[lightgigantic]

An athiest by definition does not believe in god period! Evil or good.

Nevertheless if they took the working definitions within their critiques a bit more seriously it would certainly improve the quantity of their quality arguments ...

 

[quinnsong]

Answered already.

The standard understanding of god is that he is the central figure for the creation, maintenance and annihilation of all things.

Its also the standard understanding that god directs the arrival of a living entity before they are born and the destination of the living entity after their body perishes.

Now why are you insisting on less than standard definitions?

A theological dispute with standard definitions of god or a limp-wristed argument in the service of vehemence?

"actually from god's perspective its relocation." Your words in your gods mouth!

This may be your understanding of god or even the standard definition but you stating it as a fact is a little presumptuous, dont ya think?

 

[lightgigantic]

"actually from god's perspective its relocation." Your words in your gods mouth!

what else do you call controlling one's arrival, stay and departure?

This may be your understanding of god or even the standard definition but you stating it as a fact is a little presumptuous, dont ya think?

You haven't even begun to explain why you think its not a standard definition - although I am tending to think that its merely that your arguments require weak definitions in order to be valid
:shrug:

 

[quinnsong]

what else do you call controlling one's arrival, stay and departure?


You haven't even begun to explain why you think its not a standard definition - although I am tending to think that its merely that your arguments require weak definitions in order to be valid
:shrug:

My point is since I do not believe in your god, your argument is neither valid nor meaninful to me!

 

[lightgigantic]

My point is since I do not believe in your god, your argument is neither valid nor meaninful to me!

Still no excuse for a poorly thought out critique

:shrug:

 

[quinnsong]

Still no excuse for a poorly thought out critique

:shrug:

You want me to critique your god so we can get into a pissing contest, this is all you are after! Are you going to change my mind? Am I going to change yours? Safe to say, no not likely!

I have seen these religious arguments over and over on this forum, and I see no gain for believers or nonbelievers. Seems fruitless since you begin your premise w/ a belief that I put away years ago!

 

[lightgigantic]

You want me to critique your god so we can get into a pissing contest, this is all you are after!

with about ten posts of puddles at your feet you've already stated your intentions

:shrug:

Are you going to change my mind? Am I going to change yours? Safe to say, no not likely!

welcome to sci

I have seen these religious arguments over and over on this forum, and I see no gain for believers or nonbelievers. Seems fruitless since you begin your premise w/ a belief that I put away years ago!

all this still doesn't lend credibility to your critique
:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

kind of like saying that since we cannot control the rain there is no point carrying an umbrella
:shrug:



You mean it was god's work to get a higher head count?
Whats the mchanics behind your thinking?

I'm responding to theists who think natural disasters are God's punishment for something. If an all powerful being wants to punish you, there is nothing you can do about it. If there is, then God isn't all powerful. I think you subscribe to some kind of Hindu conception where God is both the creator and the destroyer, so my criticism is not directed towards you.

 

[quinnsong]

with about ten posts of puddles at your feet you've already stated your intentions

:shrug:

welcome to sci


all this still doesn't lend credibility to your critique
:shrug:

Did I offer a critique?

 

[lightgigantic]

Did I offer a critique?

yes
yes
and yes

just to name a few

 

[Lori_7]

scapegoat? stupid?

you really don't know much about christianity for a christian. correction: you don't know anything about it.

her beliefs are in alignment with the old testament as well as the new testament that 'heathen' or 'godless' nations are the one's to suffer god's wrath by disasters and what have you.

there are christians today who even say that america is having a hard time due to it's sins and god is angry etc.

didn't you allude to something like this before? she was just more direct. i respect her more because she is more honest. was she trained too well and blew the christian world's cover? lol. why hide it if you really believe that unless you know there is something wrong or unethical about it? hmm?

how can you say she's honest when she is obviously lying? she is not a christian, and her message isn't christian. she's an anti-christian politician with an agenda.

so what? i think you may have to have an agenda to pay attention to such things.

the truth is, things are going to get a lot worse than this, and those left alive the longest, will get to witness and suffer through the worst and most of it. blessed?

 

[quinnsong]

Yes, mea culpa, I did get pulled in dammit! :bugeye: Note to self please stay away from religion forum and if you do frequent there read but do not write. Sorry LG jumping off merry-go-round because I get tired of going in circles!

 

[Bells]

the truth is, things are going to get a lot worse than this, and those left alive the longest, will get to witness and suffer through the worst and most of it. blessed?

Might as well end it all now then..

Tell people to stop having children and all the rest of it.

 

[Lori_7]

Might as well end it all now then..

Tell people to stop having children and all the rest of it.

i don't have to tell anybody anything. it's all over the news.