In article <web.475ed853922777eb773c9a3e0@news.povray.org>, 
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > I have seen how people who see the world in clear black and white act.
> > They are called sociopaths. And just to be clear. I have never, nor has
> > anyone I know that ranges from mildly religious to atheist, *ever* rape
d
> > anyone, killed anyone, lied on the scale that self claimed believers do
,
> > or committed any of the other large scale sins that *you* are likely
> > talking about when saying that we live in an immoral world. However,
> > ***every*** person I have ever met that thinks the Bible is literal
> > truth, believes they are saved, or otherwise thinks I am the one going
> > to hell is invariably a hypocrite, lies constantly, would steal formula
> > from a starving baby if they thought God wanted them to, threatens to
> > kill people, has committed either rape, adultery, pedophilia, or all of
> > those together, and more than a few, attach themselves to other
> > *believers* like leeches, to suck money, time, and anything else they
> > can get their hands on, from the fools that stand there and defend them
> > for doing it.
> 
> man, cool down!  Not all believers are rapist, violent sociopaths, I cert
ainly
> am not.  Perhaps these cases search salvation exactly because of their
> behaviour?  OTOH, how many sociopaths are satanists or atheists?  How man
y
> sociopaths are in the army, supposedly defending their people?
> 
Ok, fair enough. Not all of them are. But my point is that, at least 
among those that consider the Bible unshakable and demand a 
fundamentalist/evangelical view of it, the number of insane nuts that 
are in the group is much higher than one would reasonably expect. As for 
how many sociopaths are atheist or satanists? Why the #$#@$ are you not 
asking how many Buddhists, or anything else are? But, just to humor you, 
1) Satanism is directly derived from Christianity, just with Satan cast 
as the true god, and your god cast as the evil one. They are just as 
deluded as believers, and just as prone to believe in the supernatural, 
magic, etc. You might as well be asking how many Lutherans are 
sociopaths when compared to Protestants, for all asking the question 
makes any damn sense at all. 2) 1-2% of the US is atheist, according to 
most polls. 0.01% of the people in jail are atheists, and most of them 
are not in there for violent crimes. 90% of the people in the US are 
Christians. Something like 98% of the people *in jail* are Christians. 
In other words, if there where an equal number of sociopaths in "all" 
religions, the number of people in jail, especially for things like rape 
and murder, should be the same as that of the over all population. 
Instead, everyone else is under represented, while Christians number 
greater than those that "should be" in there. This makes no sense at 
all.

Oh, and 3) it doesn't matter. If 1 out of every 10,000 thousand people 
where sociopaths, and you had 3 million people to pick from, then the 
mere fact that 27 out of the 30 sociopaths would have to fall in the 90% 
Christian category means that "most of them" are going to be members of 
your group, not mine. The fact that the statistics on jail indicate that 
its probably more like 29.7 out of every 30 that would be Christians, 
doesn't do your claims much good.

But what ever the exact number would be, which we don't have, because 
the vast majority of people flat out don't want to know, and thus have 
to admit there is a problem, its irrelevant. The clearer point is that 
believers claim that belief makes them better people, guides their 
morals, improves their ability to do right, instead of wrong, and 
***all*** evidence suggests that, much like prayer (referencing the 
studies done on that, which is also thought, by believers, to have great 
benefits), it actually either a) has no noticeable effect at all, or b) 
in some cases might actually make things worse.

> BTW, you're just plain exagerating matters.  You say "I have never, nor h
as
> anyone I know that ranges from mildly religious to atheist, *ever* raped
> anyone, killed anyone, lied on the scale that self claimed believers do" 
and I
> can say the same.  I haven't, nor anyone I know, even severely blind devo
tees
> who really believe the Universe was created in 6 days and evolution is a 
thing
> of the devil...
> 
> Atheists kill about as much as religious people:  see the comunist govern
ments,
> nazi-facists or imperialist potencies.  My take:  religous or not, we are
 just
> sinful men.
> 
Nazis where not atheist. They where Catholic. Their symbols where 
Christian, their views where Christian, their entire idea of the Aryan 
race was based on them being Gods chosen, etc. I wish you people would 
stop trying to revise history to claim otherwise. As for the others.. 
Replacing one dogma, based on the irrational, and often distorted, 
dogmas of some real person, isn't the same as atheism. These people 
might have been atheist in the sense that they rejected religion, but 
that says **jack** about anything else they did, and, more to the point, 
it didn't differ in any degree from religion, since it demanded 
absolutely adherence to an ideology, which could never be questioned.

Atheism has no central dogma, no strict tenants one *must* follow, etc. 
Communism did, as did Stalinism, Maoism, etc. It was the dogma that made 
them mass murders, not their rejection of your God. However, **your** 
dogma is part and parcel *of* your belief in that God, so its a whole 
lot harder to claim to, on one hand, reject the murder and violence that 
happens to support it, and claim that the belief itself remains somehow 
untouched. Well, at least without throwing out the dogma behind it, and 
reducing it to a belief that has no foundations at all.

> > And, the odd thing is, these people do this crap on national TV 24/7 on
> > some stations their scamming for the masses pay for, and no one blinks
> > and eye.
> 
> The catholic church and many modern evangelicals wearing suits have a lon
g
> tradition of usurping from their devottees until the last penny.  But sal
vation
> doesn't come from other men, just through the Word.
> 
It doesn't come from just the word either, since it has always been, and 
always will be, required to interpret that word, and the most popular 
means to that end is to follow fools wearing suits, who stand of street 
corners, denouncing each others beliefs, while proclaiming their own 
superior. All that you are doing here is placing yourself on a different 
street corner, and saying the same things they are. Hardly a more 
edifying or righteous position.

> > We don't have
> > saints, authority figures, kings, or people raised to some high,
> > unassailable position, from which they may not be challenged.
> > ... The only thing most of you are
> > likely to do is send letters of praise to the people that act like fool
s
> > in your system of beliefs, or ignore it, as inconsequential.
> 
> Rave supporting or ignoring someone is always to be expected in men's soc
ial
> behaviours.
> 
> > Such people are *obviously*
> > adding to the evil committed in the world, misleading people into
> > believing its acceptable to commit such acts,
> 
> it's not acceptable to commit sins, but we're all bound to commit it one 
way or
> the other and should seek forgiveness for it.  True religious people try 
their
> best to avoid repeating their mistakes.  but you know it's hard...
> 
Not true. First off, even the bloody church can't agree on what is and 
isn't a sin, with half the stuff we don't consider such today being 
things you could be burned for a few centuries ago. Worse, they claim 
the NT says X, base it on the OT, which says Y, and then ignore the fact 
that the *real* OT, from the Jewish faith, says Z. Case in point. 
Cursing and taking the lords name in vein where *very clearly* taken, in 
the original version, to mean asking god to curse someone, or cursing 
god for something you didn't like. The Protestants opted to reinterpret 
the meaning to include anything they personally found blasphemous, or 
mildly objectionable, and now, today, no one follows the original 
meaning, most people don't even follow the Biblical meaning, and its the 
Protestant version of, "Everything from using a word describing a body 
function we didn't like, to actually telling god to hurt your neighbor 
is a sin!" If you can't even get the definition of what is or isn't a 
sin right, never mind explain why it makes sense, at all, to call it 
such, how the heck do you either a) get it right, or b) avoid doing it, 
or c) ask forgiveness of the right things?

And bad language is only one of the more silly ones. There are numerous 
other "sins" on the list that are just plain absurd, and most of them 
are neither mentioned in the Bible, or derivable from it, but are based 
"solely" on definitions invented by the same suit wearing pharisee you 
insist are somehow irrelevant to the process.

> > I am willing to fight against
> > that, by exposing such acts. You... ignore them?
> 
> why don't you also expose sins by non-believers?  How many scientists hav
e been
> living in a fraud in their quest for fortune, fame and glory?  Yes, it's 
easier
> to hide them when you can simply say it's the way science works:  critici
se
> their work and try to bring them down, if it stands, it's a good, solid t
heory.
>  If not, let's forget.
> 
How many scientist are living for fortune, fame and glory? Frack, you 
really know nothing at all about science do you? Scientists are almost 
always universally underfunded, most of them, if they do become famous, 
only get derision and hate mail, and glory tends to universally go to 
war mongers and loud mouth fools, or sports stars, not people that 
deserve it. Maybe you are actually confusing NFL football with science? 
I means seriously, scientists may get paid slightly better than 
teachers, but they also have to beg, kiss ass and very nearly suck... 
well, they have to bend over backward to convince there colleges, the 
government and businesses to give them enough money to buy test tubes, 
never mind do any science. 99.9% of them will never be remembered, many 
of those that are remembered are remembered as fools, or being dead 
wrong about large parts of their theories (and that **includes** Darwin, 
who got more than half of what he proposed dead wrong), and die poor. 
The 0.1% that manage to avoid that are, more often than not, people that 
have sold themselves to some special interest, who don't give a #@$#@$ 
whether their science is sound or not, just that they have a science, 
with some big name, that backs them. And the rest of your comment is 
just bloody ridiculous. The entire scientific process is **predicated** 
on tearing the other guys work down, and showing its flawed, and 
determining if it works.

Mind you, you are probably talking about people like Dawkins. And yes, 
some of us have and do tear into even his stuff, when appropriate. But 
he has gotten famous, not for his science, but because he has *dared* to 
do what upsets people like you, and stood up for a position you refuse 
to acknowledge, don't like, think is wrong, etc. He isn't the first to 
do so either. He is simply the first one to do with when the vast 
majority of people around him (he is English) are open to his opinions. 
Had he tried it, as others did, 100 years ago, he would probably have 
been lynched. And your define of his success as intentionally trying to 
become rich, famous, etc., is about as stupid and meaningless as if I 
had accused Martin Luther of becoming a famous advocate of civil rights, 
not because he cared about it, and people where open to hearing it, but 
solely because he wanted to become a powerful and influential priest.

> > And somehow, the entire
> > problem is not too much religion in the hands of lunatics, madmen,
> > bigots and the immoral, its a lack of religion among those that don't
> > fall for their lies in the first place...
> 
> Lunatics, madmen and bigots are everywhere in positions of power.  At lea
st,
> religion welcomes them and offer them a path to salvation.  If they follo
w it
> or not is their problem and relates to their free will.
> 
It doesn't offer them a path to salvation. It gives them an easy way to 
manipulate the ignorant, a place to hide among those that will blindly 
protect and defend them, and a means to escape most of the legal 
problems that might arise from their actions, since, at least in the 
states, most of the crap they pull falls under, "How their church 
defines their own dogma and practices, which the government may not 
interfere with." The don't choose your salvation, because the reason 
they joined was not to look for it in the first place. They joined to 
take advantage of people that would follow them blindly, ignore or 
recuse their sins, help them commit immoral acts, when stated in the 
right context, and do so from the safety of an organization that won't 
accept that their leader is wrong, question his authority, nor can be 
sued/dissolved by any uncorrupted secular agency, for acting in what, 
even by their own supposed definitions, wasn't Christian behavior. After 
all, all they have to do to avoid the state stepping in the do anything 
about it is have their leader insist its *their* local interpretation of 
right and wrong, and that, since the state cannot question it, even if a 
blind and deaf autistic could tell they are lying through their teeth 
about it.

> > Such people imply a state of
> > blindness that only *starts* at blind faith, and merely progresses down
> > hill from there.
> 
> funny thing is that I used to be a skeptic.  and my faith isn't blind at 
all,
> it's just faith...
> 
What ever. And sorry, but in my experience, skeptics don't convert to 
believers, not unless they where never truly skeptics in the first 
place, and *wanted* on some level for it to be true to start with. And, 
as with every such, "I was once a nonbeliever/skeptic, but I saw the 
light!", you offer no believable explanation for the sudden change, 
offer a lot of ignorance about the history of what you claim to follow, 
show no interest, nor attempt to rationally consider any of your 
beliefs, and make statements about it that are about as blind as you can 
get, without poking your eyes, out. I believe your claim of skepticisms 
about as much as I do the existence of your god. I have seen nothing to 
suggest the former is any more real than the later.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> Science replaced religion all the time, you people just keep moving the
> goal posts and insisting that, "Well, even if we now know X, we don't
> know Y and God is hiding under Y."

God is not hiding under X or Y, it's everywhere for people with eyes to see and
ears to hear.

> And, just to be clear religion is bad because it derails discovery and
> promotes dogma, which, as has already been mentioned, **is not allowed**
> to be questioned.

Discovery and technological progress is made outside of religion, let religious
dogmas alone for believers.  It's not like one isn't allowed to question, just
that said questioning is moot, since it's a matter of faith.

> When the first versions of the Bible where published
> in English, it caused paranoia, fear and fundamentalism, since it
> demanded that everyone accept *all* of its contents as literally true,
> by its own definitions, and people where so scared of getting it wrong
> that they where willing to kill people to force them to follow it.

"God writes right by twisted lines."

You'd be more accurate, though, to say that many people have died as result of
fanatism of all kinds:  patriotic fanatism, political fanatism, racial
fanatism.    Why stop at religious fanatism?  Besides, the Crusades had mainly
economical motives, not religious.

It's well known how those in power corrupt weaker minds by any means they can
get.  This includes religion, of course.  It's a powerful thing because you can
make people willing to die for salvation to perform terrible acts.  So, yes, the
Catholic Church as an extension for Rome imperialism really committed several
acts that go against anything Christ ever taught.  This does not invalidate His
teachings and guidance, nor God's covenant with the Hebrews.  We're humans,
bound to sin and to misinterpret things due to our bias.

still, by blood, suffering and death has Christ made a new covenant for us with
God.  A similar fate awaited early for those while the religion spread like
wild fire.  you know, "no pain, no gain".

Wasn't it for the Roman Empire and their will to conquer, Christianity would not
be as widespread and many more people would never have heard of the Gospel and
the salvation... evil, it seems, is not without purpose.

Someone asked before what would make me lose my faith, or something.  Well, it'd
be to know for sure that Christ didn't exist; that he was a fraud invented by a
group of hellenic israelites to fit existing prophecies; that his marvelous
quotes and moral quidance are product of poetic and moral inspiration rather
than divine inspiration; that he didn't die for us since he never existed; that
the whole OT is just retro-writing and folk tales.  It all seem very likely and
even logical.  Certainly a sure-bet from the non-believer's point-of-view.

> http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/SIMBUR.html

nice, thanks.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Or are you telling me that starving babies in Africa isn't a bad thing?
>> Cancer is really good in disguise? Lynching blacks is really *good* for
>> them?
> 
> These are human tragedies.  Shit happens.
> 
> It's not good for the people involved, but to what extent?  To die as a baby or
> to survive only to be enslaved, or abused, and to die of hunger or AIDS
> eventually?  How can you say to live is better than to die?  Maybe God has
> other plans for these people.  And regardless if you have any faith or not,
> these tragedies always end up resulting in something positive in the end,
> either making us rethink our way of life or being less egoistical.  It's
> actually in such times that we see the best of people coming out and letting be
> known.
> 

Something good happens, it's time to thank God for it. Something bad
happens, then it must be God's will? Either God does interact with
people in this existence, or he doesn't. If he interacts to cause some
good things to happen, miracles that the tele-evangelists are always
talking about, then why does he continue to allow this bad stuff to happen?

In other words, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, why does his
planning suck?

>> So the original bit still stands - either God *can't* stop the evil, or
>> he *decides* not to stop the evil.
> 
> yin-yang.  One cannot exist without the other.  Evil serves the purpose of
> showing the nature of Good by contrast.  Is Evil outside God's control?  Was
> Evil created by God as everything else?  Or is Evil just a different God?
> 
> these questions are outside my reach.  It doesn't matter, because I chose the
> side I'm comfortable the most.
> 
> 

If Evil is outside of God's control, then God is not omnipotent. If he
simply does not stop evil, but allows it to happen when he could act to
stop it, then he is not Good. And if he can not interact with us to stop
it, then why get upset that some people choose not to believe in
something that can not even interact with this existence?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:03:40 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:46:46 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Not so much that they're too unlikely, but that they are vague enough
>>>> as to take anything that fits the criteria and say "well, it
>>>> happened, so therefore it wasn't improbable enough".  See the
>>>> difference?
>>> That's what science is for. And statistics. Generally speaking, it's
>>> *possible* quantum particles could randomly come into existence in the
>>> shape of a living, breathing Jesus. Unlikely enough I'd attribute it
>>> to something else, tho.
>> 
>> Exactly; because your belief is that such a thing is unlikely, so there
>> must be a rational (within your frame of reference) explanation for it
>> that you're just not seeing.
> 
> I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. Isn't it *your* belief
> that Jesus will be reincarnated by random fluctuations of the quantum
> foam is rather unlikely?

No, it isn't my belief, because I think that if there was a Jesus (in the 
first place), he was just a guy with some interesting ideas.

> Were it to happen, I'd think it more likely God made it happen than that
> it was just random.

OK.

>> So if something were to occur that you couldn't put a scientific
>> explanation to, you'd accept that your view was wrong that there isn't
>> a god?  I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here...
> 
> That's basically what I'm saying, yes. And it's not just "we don't know
> how it happened", but "we know it can't possibly happen".

But by definition (using your own statistical definition), if it happens, 
the probability of it happening is 1, therefore it was possible for it to 
happen.

>> For you or me, sure.  But you and I don't have the monopoly on
>> perspectives that make sense to people, either.  Maybe God told them
>> that the perception was right;
> 
> I have no problem with that. Just because it's irrational doesn't mean
> it's *bad*.

Irrational to you - that's part of what I'm saying, if I say "God told me 
x", you might see it as irrational because it wasn't God who was talking 
to you, but to me it's entirely rational because God talked to me.

>> Well, true enough - because the event already happened.  But the
>> statistical likelihood of it happening prior to actually happening is
>> what I was referring to.
> 
> The statistical likelihood of me rolling 3 6 4 5 1 3 4 2 3 on a die is
> identical to me rolling 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 on a die. You can't look at
> the thing after the fact and say "it was unlikely", because you're
> ignoring all the *other* unlikely things that didn't happen. No volcano
> opened up in San Francisco, nor did the Las Vegas strip flood. But you'd
> be laughed at if you tried to use those non-events to prove the
> non-existence of God.

Even if they did happen, they wouldn't be proof of the existence of God.  
Even if modern science had no rational explanation for them, they still 
wouldn't prove the existence of God.

>> Exactly.  Which is why an event or series of events that have happened
>> (as opposed to "if they do happen") is unlikely to prove that God
>> exists to anyone - because if they do happen, then they were
>> statistically likely to happen and all the information necessary to
>> make that determination just wasn't in yet.
> 
> Unless someone predicts it *specifically* in advance.

Nostradamas, anyone?  Some say he was very specific (something I disagree 
with, but it's all a matter of perspective).

>>>> Agreed, because belief isn't logical.  Otherwise, it wouldn't be
>>>> belief, it'd be fact-based.
>>> Well, it isn't (in my experience) logical, but it's also not
>>> scientific. The two are somewhat different.
>> 
>> Somewhat different, but strongly related.
> 
> Well, the logic rules we use are scientifically supported, and science
> seems to continue to obey the laws of logic.

That doesn't seem much different than "the bible is consistent because 
the bible says it is".....

> If modus ponens didn't work, we wouldn't use it. Since begging the
> question doesn't work, we don't use it.

Now I need to go and try again to understand modus ponens. :)

>>> If you like that sort of stuff, read some Greg Egan works. I'd
>>> recommend Permutation City for a start, or his Axiomatic short-story
>>> collection.
>> 
>> I'll add that to my list as well.  :-)
> 
> "Permutation City" explores the nature of reality and its relationship
> to self. "Quarantine" explores free will. "Disporia" defines
> self-awareness/conciousness in the first dozen pages or so, but I'd have
> to read it again to appreciate it more - read the first chapter or two
> in the bookstore if you like. "Axiomatic" is a collection of short
> stories exploring, well, axiomaticity, if there is such a word.
> "Distress" is about the relationship of love and knowledge and reality,
> sorta.

Sounds a lot like something I'd enjoy - thanks again for the reference, 
will definitely have to find a copy.

> I see he has more stuff out that I'll have to buy. Cool.
> 
> (I found Teranesia very disappointing, and Schild's Ladder interesting
> but not amazing, fwiw.)
> 
>> LOL, now *that* made me laugh out loud.
> 
> Yeah, when you've studied and thought about these subjects for a couple
> decades, it's not hard to laugh out loud at the stuff people regurgitate
> because they've been told it by their spiritual leaders.

Yes, agreed.  I have heard some weird stuff over the years....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Discovery and technological progress is made outside of religion, let religious
> dogmas alone for believers.  It's not like one isn't allowed to question, just
> that said questioning is moot, since it's a matter of faith.

Discovery and technological progress (only) made outside of religion? 
Hardly.  Time management, animal husbandry, hybrid plants, bookkeeping, 
water-driven mechanisms, sign language...there's a lot that happened 
under the auspice of religion in monastic settings between the fall of 
the Roman Empire and the Renaissance.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Irrational to you - that's part of what I'm saying, if I say "God told me 
> x", you might see it as irrational because it wasn't God who was talking 
> to you, but to me it's entirely rational because God talked to me.

That's not the meaning of the word "rational" I was using.

> Even if they did happen, they wouldn't be proof of the existence of God.  
> Even if modern science had no rational explanation for them, they still 
> wouldn't prove the existence of God.

Yes, I know.

> Nostradamas, anyone?  Some say he was very specific (something I disagree 
> with, but it's all a matter of perspective).

In the things for which he was very specific, he was also wrong.

And again, if you take a prediction that's sufficiently vague, and you 
allow for minor errors, it's easy to find *something* that matches.

Mash any five keys on your keyboard. Now go try to find what word that 
*might* be in a big dictionary. How often will you find something?

>> Well, the logic rules we use are scientifically supported, and science
>> seems to continue to obey the laws of logic.
> 
> That doesn't seem much different than "the bible is consistent because 
> the bible says it is".....

I was simply pointing out the difference between science and logic. 
Science isn't right because science say it's right. Science is right 
because science changes until it matches the observed world.

>> If modus ponens didn't work, we wouldn't use it. Since begging the
>> question doesn't work, we don't use it.
> 
> Now I need to go and try again to understand modus ponens. :)

If A implies B, and A is true, then B is true.

> Sounds a lot like something I'd enjoy - thanks again for the reference, 
> will definitely have to find a copy.

Amazon!


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> God is not hiding under X or Y, it's everywhere for people with eyes to see and
> ears to hear.

And if you disagree, you're stupid, ignorant, and about to be punished 
forever in eternal flames!  And that's a *good* thing!

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> But Loki, Bacchus, and Pan aren't 'Satan'.

Well, I guess you don't see the similarities there. Given that Loki, for 
example, came about the same way as Satan did, and did the same stuff 
that Satan did, including bringing fire to humanity...

How come when I worship Pele, I'm really worshiping God, but when I 
worship Loki, I'm not really worshiping Satan?

> To me, "God" is the sum total of reality which, 

So God and Universe mean the same thing? Why confuse things like that?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Or are you telling me that starving babies in Africa isn't a bad thing?
>> Cancer is really good in disguise? Lynching blacks is really *good* for
>> them?
> 
> These are human tragedies.  Shit happens.

So, God allows this evil to happen. OK. That was one of the 
possibilities: God can prevent evil, but doesn't.

> Maybe God has other plans for these people.

Burning forever in eternal unbaptized unsaved torment, last I heard.

>> So the original bit still stands - either God *can't* stop the evil, or
>> he *decides* not to stop the evil.
> 
> yin-yang.  One cannot exist without the other. 

OK. Then God *can't* stop the evil. Fair enough.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/11 20:51:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>> Science replaced religion all the time, you people just keep moving the
>> goal posts and insisting that, "Well, even if we now know X, we don't
>> know Y and God is hiding under Y."
> 
> God is not hiding under X or Y, it's everywhere for people with eyes to see and
> ears to hear.
I have eyes to see and ears to hear and I've NEVER ever saw anything supporting 
any "God".
> 
>> And, just to be clear religion is bad because it derails discovery and
>> promotes dogma, which, as has already been mentioned, **is not allowed**
>> to be questioned.
> 
> Discovery and technological progress is made outside of religion, let religious
> dogmas alone for believers.  It's not like one isn't allowed to question, just
> that said questioning is moot, since it's a matter of faith.
> 
Dogma refute anything that's not concordent with it's dictates. You can't count 
the times when religions and dogma suppressed discoveries and technological 
progress. You can't count because there are to many cases! That's not counting 
all the cases when dogma have perverted discoveries and technological progress.
>> When the first versions of the Bible where published
>> in English, it caused paranoia, fear and fundamentalism, since it
>> demanded that everyone accept *all* of its contents as literally true,
>> by its own definitions, and people where so scared of getting it wrong
>> that they where willing to kill people to force them to follow it.
> 
> "God writes right by twisted lines."
> 
> You'd be more accurate, though, to say that many people have died as result of
> fanatism of all kinds:  patriotic fanatism, political fanatism, racial
> fanatism.    Why stop at religious fanatism?  Besides, the Crusades had mainly
> economical motives, not religious.
Religious fanatism is by far the worst kind.
> 
> It's well known how those in power corrupt weaker minds by any means they can
> get.  This includes religion, of course.  It's a powerful thing because you can
> make people willing to die for salvation to perform terrible acts.  So, yes, the
> Catholic Church as an extension for Rome imperialism really committed several
> acts that go against anything Christ ever taught.  This does not invalidate His
> teachings and guidance, nor God's covenant with the Hebrews.  We're humans,
> bound to sin and to misinterpret things due to our bias.
> 
> still, by blood, suffering and death has Christ made a new covenant for us with
> God.  A similar fate awaited early for those while the religion spread like
> wild fire.  you know, "no pain, no gain".
> 
> Wasn't it for the Roman Empire and their will to conquer, Christianity would not
> be as widespread and many more people would never have heard of the Gospel and
> the salvation... evil, it seems, is not without purpose.
> 
> Someone asked before what would make me lose my faith, or something.  Well, it'd
> be to know for sure that Christ didn't exist; that he was a fraud invented by a
> group of hellenic israelites to fit existing prophecies; that his marvelous
> quotes and moral quidance are product of poetic and moral inspiration rather
> than divine inspiration; that he didn't die for us since he never existed; that
> the whole OT is just retro-writing and folk tales.  It all seem very likely and
> even logical.  Certainly a sure-bet from the non-believer's point-of-view.
> 
>> http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/SIMBUR.html
> 
> nice, thanks.
> 
> 
History show that as culture and education flourish, religion wither. Religion 
is only a crutch to try to understand the world around the uncultivated, and a 
shackle for the cultivated peoples.


-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you try to compress a mandelbrot 
landscape made of spheres just to 4 lines of pov code.
Warp

Post a reply to this message