N.drew, when these nice people are done with the lady in the middle, they are going to give you a ride:
An Old Argument.... does it hold water?
by AK - Jeff 1495 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
N.drew
You sound like the Jehovah's Witnesses on Bible Discussion Forum. 50 years ago the world, including my husband (but we were babies then) would have commited me, yes, but the world is going nuts and if we can see why, and it doesn't need to be that way, so now I fit right in. Someone on another post said that the primates go mad by their treatment. I am much much more on their side then I am on yours. So if I should go mad along with fellow Earth, you will insult me? You just make yourself look stupid.
-
sizemik
Twice I have been asked what I do personally...what the hell has that got to do with the subject? . . . still thinking
Basically it's a strawman. But it's good to keep in mind that this is humanly necessary when questions can't be addressed rationally . . . that is, based on the critical elements of the argument being dealt with dispassionately. IMO when one side of the argument is weak, it prompts a more passionate response and rationality diminishes as a result.
The constant here with those who "defend god" is their passion. I understand that, but it has little bearing on the argument. The theists here have taken criticism of the God phenomenon very personally because belief is bound up in emotion. Criticism pertaining to the existence of God is perceived as an attack on God and by extension themselves, and that stirs their passion. As bohm very rightly pointed out, the atheist does not attack God but rather the concept of his existence. Because this is not understood to be the case, the theist takes it personally and responds with passion rather than rationale, much to the chagrin of the atheist who is focussed more on the issue rather than god.
This has been my observation from this thread. You won't like me for saying this . . . but it's the same thing that makes a JW a JW. It's playing a different instrument in the same orchestra.
-
tec
Oh, for goodness sakes.
tec - normally i pride myself on not being petty so I regularly let your inability to even attemp to comprehend anything I post and to regularly misquote me slide, but tonight I, emboldened by a McDonald's cheeseburger and two, yes two apple pies, will luxuriate in responding (though I won't be anal enough to do it line by line like some unamed posters across these pAGes.)
I think you should take another look at either a) your pride, or b) your 'lack' of pettiness. I don't misquote you. I answer all of your questions. You don't like the way that I answer them, perhaps because whatever point you were trying to make is lost, because I am NOT what you think I am.
Oh and the bolded part was petty... toward someone else, even while you're addressing me. Your pride should get bonus points for that.
First and foremost it is a central plank of your own argument that we have the 'means and tools' to 'mitigate' (google it if its not in your vocab.)suffering.
Yes.
If you agree that the struggle to feed oneself is indeed a result of God's curse then you have eloquently proven post 1.
Don't agree. Sorry about that. I keep not agreeing with what you think I agree with.
I do not believe that God cursed us. Told us what was going to happen outside of the garden, but not a curse. Just a fact. Like saying that men would rule over women. Not a curse. Just a fact (or prophecy) that this WOULD happen.
You may have missed some other themes I touched upon - let me list them for your reading pleasure:
I did not miss them. But I decided not to go so much as a line for line, and this is what happens. You think I missed things. Hence the reason for the line by line to begin with. Thank you for helping to prove the necessity of it.
Modern medicine has reduced the effects of pain (indeed even your mentor takes pain relief so it is OK to agree here - you will not offend her).
Yes. I did not disagree with that.
We don't die - on average - as early as we used to , again largely due to the effects of the industrial revolution and modern technology.
On average, perhaps not. But some of us die who would not have died due to that same revolution and technology. But on average... here in the developed countries... we have longer life spans, thanks to medicine and knowledge.
Women's rights have been improved globally (but most rapidly in the West.)
They have improved and are continuing to improve, thanks be to the women who fought for their rights, and the men who helped them.
Gender preference is becoming less of an issue as we become more tolerant.
On the surface, perhaps. There are a lot of deep clinging roots there, but I agree that it is going to become less and less of an issue. Hopefully.
Racial discrimination is reducing.
On this I do disagree. Its no longer legal. But it is there in a big way. The new target... muslims, immigrants altogether. (Immigrants because of financial concerns, (as was slavery)... but legal or illegal immigrants are under this)
The Bible contains references to God acting as murderer or instigator of genocide, showing racial preference, cursing mankind with hardship and discriminating - especially against women.
So? (I don't think you know your bible as well as you think you do, though... as the above shows) But you're well aware that if anything in the 'bible' contradicts the Image of Christ for God, then I reject it.
Now you did not make it clear which of those points you wanted me to pass on to people in difficult situations. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt and being able to read the context of your rant it seems you were merely replying to the 'sweat of brow' bit. Now before I go out and tell people your message I just want to be absolutely clear:
I don't know what you're talking about... though if the past is any indicator, Q, I guarentee that you 'missed' the point of whatever message I had to share.
Do you want me to tell them that the reason they are suffering is because - contrary to my assertion - God's curse is still in full effect and they are suffering a tough life because of him? You see my post talks about the reduction not cessation of suffering and I wouldnt want to sound like an ass.
Too late.
I will struggle to pass on messages to those who have committed suicide. That is probably AGs area as she talks to dead people.
Yeah, definitely too late here.
Do you want me to tell them that the industrial revolution, modern medicine and technology are not alleviating any of their suffering? If so I'll need you to provide me an alternate that must be pretty cool as I ask them to bin their medication, cars, food from the supermarket, clothing, electricity usage and hand back any welfare payments or food stamps society may have provided them and ask them to return to honest toil in the fields.
Again, no idea what you're talking about. But that would be perhaps because you did not get my point, and so are speaking on something that I never said.
Do the homeless people you want me to tell include those kicked out of their home by a vengeful god for eating fruit?
See above.
I am aware that you see a lot of suffering, tragic I agree, but I must draw the line at saying it is worse that some people ignore it. Really? Ignoring child abuse is worse than actually suffering it? I will not press this point as I know you will be desperately wanting to get on with crafting a suitably grovelling apology but before you get to that I'd like to point out one last teeny point.
Case and point here, on how little you are understanding what I am saying. Perhaps the fault is mine. Other people seem to understand me though, but still.
The suffering is MADE worse that some people ignore it. Or deny that it is as bad as what it is, or even that it IS at all.
(was that a good enough grovelling apology for you? Might have to work on that a bit more, hmm?)
People with turbans aren't terrorists. There may well be terrorists who wear turbans. Your statement above is incorrect and you shoulld probably retract it.
I assume you are being deliberately obtuse here, so I'll just leave this one alone.
Peace,
Tammy
-
sizemik
And if any human is charged with being guilty of not helping a fellow human when they could do so, then the argument is clearly over, for those ones agree that it is wrong to stand by when one could help.
That very point was made on page 4 . . . and you're probably right, the argument was over about then. The last 60 pages have changed nothing since.
-
tec
I would also like to say that I am humbled by both Gladiator and Shelby. And just really happy, because I love you both.
Shelby, I would also just like to say that I am sorry. I have always known that you have more love than most, and courage as well. I hope that I did not add to your hurt. I probably did. Sometimes I am nice because I am too cowardly to say what I really think, and sometimes I don't say what I really think because what I don't want to hurt someone else.
Because this is not understood to be the case, the theist takes it personally and responds with passion rather than rationale, much to the chagrin of the atheist who is focussed more on the issue rather than god.
Yes, it is personal, because God is a loved one, and so is His Son.
But there have also been a great deal of personal attacks on here. Christians are idiots. You are a sick bastard. Christians avoid the issue. Christians cannot be logical. Christians believe (insert false idea here). And also many other assumptions and false accusations, that even though they are responded TO, are ignored.
I think in the words of the wise mr. flipper...
Peace out.
Tammy
-
sizemik
That's what frustration and chagrin produce Tammy . . . if the basis of argumentation is not logical or rational to anyone other than the one making the assertion. That's human nature I'm afraid. If you equivocate with a simple premise that calls for a straight answer it produces frustration. The OP was a clear and unequivocal posing of a moral inconsistency that deserved to be treated as such.
The old saying to not bring a knife to a gunfight (strictly a metaphor) might have some application here. What began as a problem requiring rational argument attracted nothing more than declarations of personal belief. There's a time and place for everything. If you treat it as a soapbox opportunity then you've got to be rational and understandable to your audience . . . not just yourself. You can't make it their responsibility to find the rationale . . . you've got to produce it. Some need to choose their battles more wisely perhaps.
-
jay88
But you're well aware that if anything in the 'bible' contradicts the Image of Christ for God, then I reject it.
..........
Nothing in Tammy's existence will compete with this statement.
Which is tantamount to asking her to curse "god" and die,....it is not going to happen.
-
N.drew
I don't think so. I believe Earth was given to mankind to subdue it by God. So the OP describes mankind not subduing it. So the trouble that is described in the OP does not identify what God has or has not done, but what MAN has and hasn't done.
Most of mankind (as a group that might cooperate within the group) have left the responsibility of the future of Earth to fate, luck. false gods that have no power, or to nothing. So it is probable that the scripture that says they destroy the Earth will come true (Revelation 11:18). Well then ,what about the one's who did not join mankind in mankind's un-belief? They will take their responsibily seriously because of their love for God....
-
sizemik
Most of mankind (as a group that might cooperate within the group) have left the responsibility of the future of Earth to fate, luck. false gods that have no power, or to nothing. . . . N.drew
N.drew . . . I fully agree