THANK GOD for the earthquake

[lightgigantic]

If we are essentially of the same nature as God, then I would no more worship Him than any other person,

So you are willing to treat any old american as the president (since any old american shares the nature of the president - namely being an american)

and it's perfectly reasonable to condemn Him for his unwillingness to prevent tragedy. That's manslaughter.

actually from god's perspective its relocation.

IOW since god has the power to not only manifest a living entity in certain conditions but also maintain them in that status, his withdrawing of them to a different situation is not an act of murder.

Of course, in a general sense, its morally reprehensible for us to do that since we neither manifest or maintain a living entity's consciousness

 

[Rhaedas]

This is not to say that calamity per se is a good thing or that it should be wished for; just that once it happens, it is not necessary to view it as something damning or bad.

An atheist would see something like that as a natural cause, so there's no evil or motive behind it, it's something to deal with as best as you can, and maybe learn from it.

That's a far cry from a theist who thinks that their god is behind these things to teach a lesson somehow to someone. Cancer isn't evil. A god who gives cancer to someone, that could be constrained as evil.

 

[wynn]

If we are essentially of the same nature as God, then I would no more worship Him than any other person, and it's perfectly reasonable to condemn Him for his unwillingness to prevent tragedy. That's manslaughter.

If you would really believe you are essentially of the same nature as God, then you wouldn't have a problem with the things God does (and so you wouldn't go into accusations of manslaughter).

 

[lightgigantic]

Getting killed in a bathtub could be said to be your own fault,

how?

but people are often unable to avoid catastrophic natural disasters.

death has a 100% success rate and has had so since time immemorial.

No one escapes death.

Not even the actors in sci-fi movies about travelling back in time or whatever

I think the quantity difference is also significant. The bathtub death could be justified, maybe that person was bad. But 10,000 people couldn't all be bad.

how does dying make one bad?

 

[wynn]

Signal if we were devoid of emotion then it would not matter, but we are not, so when we lose our loved ones or even our fellow human beings we feel bad!

Again, why do we feel bad when we lose our loved ones?
What do we actually think we have lost?
And why is such a loss bad/something negative?

 

[quinnsong]

So you are willing to treat any old american as the president (since any old american shares the nature of the president - namely being an american)


actually from god's perspective its relocation.

IOW since god has the power to not only manifest a living entity in certain conditions but also maintain them in that status, his withdrawing of them to a different situation is not an act of murder.

Of course, in a general sense, its morally reprehensible for us to do that since we neither manifest or maintain a living entity's consciousness

How in the hell do you know what gods pespective is? So the rest of your argument fails!

 

[wynn]

That's a far cry from a theist who thinks that their god is behind these things to teach a lesson somehow to someone.

Not all religious traditions agree that "God does things to teach people lessons".

Life doesn't teach lessons; it is up to us to learn lessons.

 

[Rhaedas]

Not all religious traditions agree that "God does things to teach people lessons".

Life doesn't teach lessons; it is up to us to learn lessons.

Didn't say they all did, I was sticking to the subject at hand, or her acted portrayal.

 

[Rhaedas]

Again, why do we feel bad when we lose our loved ones?
What do we actually think we have lost?
And why is such a loss bad/something negative?

Because we're emotional beings. Even other animals experience loss. Is this news?

 

[lightgigantic]

Because the victims of this disaster were not being held hostage, nor were they holding others hostage..

Thats not the point of the analogy.

The point is that we can ascribe positive value to the death of others, if a greater value is of consequence.

From your perspective there is perhaps no greater value than life.

From a different perspective, there is no greater value than life that cuts the grade to moving beyond the medium of death.

IOW if life is (constantly and repeatedly) relegated to the medium of death, it is (quite literally) self defeating

Whether you use the word celebrate or words like seek to understand or seek refuge in the knowledge..

I didn't use the word celebrate the deaths - in fact I thought I made it quite clear it was about rejoicing one's life

To reach that point of understanding, people have died. In other words, is it good that people have to die on a grand scale to get that understanding? Should anyone celebrate the gaining of said understanding in such circumstances?

If those people didn't die then they would die later ... and as a further detail (at least from the theists perspective) , for as long as one doesn't make sufficient spiritual advancement, one will continue to take birth and die.

The very beginning of making the move from such a rut is to understand that he material world is not a place geared up fro enjoyment.

If one can understand that, then yes, its certainly a cause for celebration.

And how genuine is it?

Are they suddenly getting in touch with God because they are scared to die? Or because it seems like the right thing to do?

its certainly not the highest grade, but then everyone has to start somewhere

Do you think that suddenly makes me a bad person?

no
merely unfortunate

A friend of mine once commented that if a parent willingly and knowingly leaves their children in a situation that endangers them or allows harm to come to their children, that parent would be charged and rightly so. It is illegal to harm one's children or to kill them.

But God, the almighty father, sits by and allows millions of his children to suffer and does nothing to prevent or alleviate their suffering or places them in situations where they will face certain death? Nothing..

Funny that, huh?

you didn't read the rest of the post that you edited out or you didn't understand it?

 

[wynn]

I think the quantity difference is also significant. The bathtub death could be justified, maybe that person was bad. But 10,000 people couldn't all be bad.

how does dying make one bad?

I think the thrust of SG's comment is like this:

It's not the case that the 10,000 killed in an earthquake would all be prisoners, convicted of serious crimes.

To be killed (by God) means that one was bad.

If one person, or a prison with 500 serious criminals are killed (by God), then this is understandable.

But when a large and versatile population is killed (such as in a natural disaster), at the same time and place, this does not seem fair.

- So how do you counter that?

 

[wynn]

Because we're emotional beings. Even other animals experience loss. Is this news?

We humans supposedly have the most evolved brains and the most advanced cognition skills and have developed an unsurpassed civilisation.

Surely when it comes to loss of loved ones, we would have more to say about it than a donkey, no?

 

[lightgigantic]

How in the hell do you know what gods pespective is? So the rest of your argument fails!

So you think god doesn't play a part in the creation, maintenance and annihilation of all things?

Or is it that you simply don't think god exists and therefore don't invest much thought in the arguments you so vehemently attempt to critique?

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

So, it's OK if I go out and (hypothetically) kill a bunch of people? It's not necessarily bad.

I said:

"This is not to say that calamity per se is a good thing or that it should be wished for; just that once it happens, it is not necessary to view it as something damning or bad."

If you plan to do something criminal and rely on the compassion and magnanimity of others to absolve you from taking responsibility for your crime, then you are setting yourself up for a dangerously precarious exchange, to say the least.

 

[spidergoat]

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too, either God is omnipotent, in which case he is responsible for at the very least not setting a good example, or he isn't omnipotent, in which case he isn't the God of popular religion.

 

[wynn]

Are you serious? She is gloating at the thought that all these people died at her request.

The really disturbing thing is realizing how we often take it for granted that others will be rational and compassionate.
We often even think that others owe it to us to be rational and compassionate.
We get ourselves into serious trouble by demanding such things from others and relying on them.

 

[quinnsong]

Again, why do we feel bad when we lose our loved ones?
What do we actually think we have lost?
And why is such a loss bad/something negative?

Because we have emotions and because we do we bond, and when we lose this bond we hurt, when we hurt we grieve! Why is this bad? Because being sad makes you feel bad, nothing more.

Ultimately your asking, why do humans have emotions?

 

[Bells]

Thats not the point of the analogy.

The point is that we can ascribe positive value to the death of others, if a greater value is of consequence.

From your perspective there is perhaps no greater value than life.

From a different perspective, there is no greater value than life that cuts the grade to moving beyond the medium of death.

IOW if life is (constantly and repeatedly) relegated to the medium of death, it is (quite literally) self defeating

But in this instance, there is no greater value as there would be in the death of kidnappers, if I were to use your example.

I didn't use the word celebrate the deaths - in fact I thought I made it quite clear it was about rejoicing one's life

Okay.

If those people didn't die then they would die later ... and as a further detail (at least from the theists perspective) , for as long as one doesn't make sufficient spiritual advancement, one will continue to take birth and die.

The very beginning of making the move from such a rut is to understand that he material world is not a place geared up fro enjoyment.

If one can understand that, then yes, its certainly a cause for celebration.

But again, the basis of that celebration, the root of that supposed enlightenment is still the death of thousands in a matter of minutes.

its certainly not the highest grade, but then everyone has to start somewhere

Take whatever you can get huh?

no
merely unfortunate

You believe I am unfortunate because I am an atheist?

I don't consider myself unlucky. So why do you?

you didn't read the rest of the post that you edited out or you didn't understand it?

I did read it and I edited it out to save room in my post - make it neater.

The question remains unanswered though.

You have stated that it is madness to seek happiness in the human material world, I disagree. I think it is natural to seek happiness.

But I find your argument interesting when one considers your pro-life stance, for example.. Why would you want to push innocents into the mad world where they will never achieve spiritual happiness? But that is off-topic..

 

[wynn]

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too, either God is omnipotent, in which case he is responsible for at the very least not setting a good example, or he isn't omnipotent, in which case he isn't the God of popular religion.

What does God's omnipotence have to do with people's ideas on what constitutes a decent death?

 

[lightgigantic]

I think the thrust of SG's comment is like this:

It's not the case that the 10,000 killed in an earthquake would all be prisoners, convicted of serious crimes.

To be killed (by God) means that one was bad.

If one person, or a prison with 500 serious criminals are killed (by God), then this is understandable.

But when a large and versatile population is killed (such as in a natural disaster), at the same time and place, this does not seem fair.

- So how do you counter that?

I'm not sure how this argument works.

I mean suppose it was just a normal day in the life of Japan.

The 3000 people who die there everyday (the non- earthquake varieties of course ..... just did a few wiki calculations) don't represent a large or versatile population?

Or these 3000 aren't killed by god?

Or is there something mystical about an earthquake (perhaps a calling back to our pagan roots) that makes it a more readily interpreted as the "displeasure of the gods"?