Millions die in Natural disasters - God is doing nothing. Do I adopt Anthropomorphism to him?

by KateWild 199 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  konceptual99

  Ultimately there were, are and will be educated scientists who cannot be termed athesist due to their belief in something supernatural in the universe.

  As Cofty says, bringing these to the table is about as meaningful as an atheist appealing to Dawkin's position as some validation of their opinion.

  The OPs both in this thread and in Cofty's are not about the existance of God (in whatever form) but about the nature of his/her/it's response to natural disaster. The threads are not about the existence of God. So far I have seen nothing in either thread that gives any kind of adequate reasoning as to how one can reconcille the lack of action by God (in whatever form) to natural disasters with a belief that that is a creator that cares or is of sufficent value for us to acknowledge.
• 

  prologos

  k99, reality is, that natural law will not be interfered with to favor a given individual in distress. (it happens only in mythical stories).

  If persons, like many accomplished scientists, and Kate, fhnow work with the belief that there is a creator, but not a "god" or gods, and

  his creation obviously is as success, this maker has given all that he deems good for our part in that successful enterprise. .

  he may have a smile of approval for our efforts to stop famine, predict, monitor earthquakes &volcamos, our great strides in Pain abatement (Thank you medics!! btw.), doing research HOW it all works,

  he/she gave us the tools to work things out. help will come from fellow humans, the family.

  That is the present "Konzept 100%" I have of our situation. So let me work at it,- during my time.
• 

  konceptual99

  I get what you are saying Prologos but the critical factor is where the "creator" steps out of the picture. If the creator is only responsible for the big bang then humans are not a creation with any more meaning than anything else. There is no more benefit in us acknowledging a creator than there is a cat doing so.

  If the creator purposed to create mankind then stepped out to leave us to our own devices then again the creator becomes irrelevant. If the creator has a purpose for mankind then he should make it clear. Apologists claim this is done through the Bible but it is clear that the Bible fails to provide a reasonable explanation for why God would allow large scale suffering through natural disasters. "Time and unforseen occurance" is fine in itself but only if you accept that it is pretty immoral to have a God that makes the sun shine so more Bibles can be printed but chooses not to act to protect large numbers of people from needless suffering.
• 

  designs

  koncept-
• 

  Xanthippe

  Is there a cross between a DEIST and PANTHEIST? I have to do more research on all the 'EISTS at present I don't think any label fits.

  I believe in God. Kate xx

  Yes a pianist

  Oh Kate these labels make me laugh too. Too many ists and isms.
• 

  KateWild

  Yes a pianist - Xant

  hahaha ROFL, well said. Kate xx
• 

  KateWild

  From what I have read it seems to me that Einstein was clearly pantheist.-besty

  Which amounts to how much?

  Have you read Max Jammer?

  My view is that no atheist would as it will not confirm their bias. From what I have read, which is more than "google it", it seems to me Einstein was clearly not pantheist. So we disagree besty.

  That's good and okay, life would be boring if we agreed with our friends all the time. It's been fun thanks. Kate xx
• 

  besty

  @kate

  assuming all I read was:

  "I believe in Spinoza's god"

  That would be enough for me - Einstein was famously economical with his words. Those 5 words tell me he was a pantheist.

  In any event, I am not interested enough in Einsteins religious beliefs to read a book devoted to the subject - my next related book will definitely be about Spinoza.

  I love how you speculate on what 'athiests' will or will not do and their reasons for so not/doing Kate - you need to brush up on your critical thinking skills hun.
• 

  KateWild

  As Cofty says, bringing these to the table is about as meaningful as an atheist appealing to Dawkin's position as some validation of their opinion.-K99

  What cofty says is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard on this thread. He has made one comment and is clearly applying a'morphism to God on his 37 page "God is cruel, because humans suffer" thread, and he did not answer my OP questions when he granted us with his presence on this thread.

  What Cofty says cannot apply to this thread I am afraid, unless he decides to say it himself, Dawkins is a fundie and wants to arm peple with his book so they can get atheist converts. Cofty knows what I have read and I have quoted to cofty why I think Dawkins is a fundie, book, page and chapter.

  Sometimes what cofty says is nonsense and he knows it, he can be inaccurate and disingenious at times, cofty is not perfect you know, but I count him as a friend, we don't agree, but he has helped me loads.

  Well thats my ramble on the topic of cofty.

  Kate xx
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  KateWildI have been told twice on this thread what label fits me, both Atheist and Theist, I believe I am niether. I simply believe in God,

  That makes you a theist Kate.

  KateWild Sometimes what cofty says is nonsense and he knows it, he can be inaccurate and disingenious at times...

  Kate there are many people on this board that your description would apply to, including me. But Cofty, although aloof at times, is probably the last person that I would accuse of talking nonsense.

  By the way, I bother to comment out of respect for the many entertaining and educational posts he has contributed.