TheUbermensch

Joined

• started 2 topics
• posted 210 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by TheUbermensch

• 
  1495

  An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

  by AK - Jeff in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  estimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.

  that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.

  still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheUbermensch

  I'm sorry Psac but I've read every single post on this thread.......
• 
  9

  The Bible: The Beginning, Middle and End

  by sabastious in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  for the past year or so i have been trying to understand the bible as the complete work it is said to be.

  instead of scouring its pages, which i have seen many drift off into madness doing, i have tried to take steps back and examine the whole.

  my jehovahs witness background gives me a good understanding of the biblical narrative in general, even though i have rejected their doctrines.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheUbermensch

  The Bible is the most beautiful thing you have ever read? Longfellow? Keats? Yeats? Shakespeare? Yeats? YEATS? Honestly, the Bible's beauty is very lacking when it comes to human poets throughout time. Capote? I've read movie monologues that were more beautiful than the Bible. Breakfast At Tiffany's, Scent of a Woman, Braveheart, Henry V (Shakespeare, but the movie was quite good), Good Will Hunting.

  What beauty does the Bible have? Old Testament is basically God fighting on the side of ONE nation of human beings against all the others, waging wars, massacring children (did you look over those horrible occurrences?), rules for how to discipline and treat your slaves, how to treat your women and children (rape is allowed by the way), and how to kill homosexuals and rebellious children.... beautiful? Satan and God making a bet on Job? I mean come on "Hey put him through misery, he won't worship you". And New Testament is the story of Jesus' adventures, and then a bunch of letters by bigoted, proud people who felt that since they knew Jesus they had the right to tell everyone else how to live. And then someone took too many hallucinogens and told us how the world was going to end. Where is the beauty in that? I mean if you honestly ARE looking at it as a whole and not ignoring the parts that aren't nice (most of it).
• 
  1495

  An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

  by AK - Jeff in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  estimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.

  that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.

  still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheUbermensch

  It's called strong and active minds. One of the reasons for existing is to find out why you exist. All arguments and frustration aside, I do respect everyone as a human being (even AGuest, tec, and N.drew, at least you're willing to debate, unlike JWs who would literally run away if confronted with evidence), and I think that deserves respect.
• 
  1495

  An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

  by AK - Jeff in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  estimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.

  that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.

  still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheUbermensch

  Well then a quote provided way back on the first pages of this thread.

  "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
  Then he is not omnipotent.
  Is he able, but not willing?
  Then he is malevolent.
  Is he both able and willing?
  Then whence cometh evil?
  Is he neither able nor willing?
  Then why call him God?"
  - Epicurus

  A person is justified in believing that X does not exist if

  (1) all the available evidence used to support the view that X exists is shown to be inadequate; and

  (2) X is the sort of entity that, if X exists, then there is a presumption that would be evidence adequate to support the view that X exists; and

  (3) this presumption has not been defeated although serious efforts have been made to do so; and

  (4) the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined; and

  (5) there are no acceptable beneficial reasons to believe that X exists. (p. 283)

  I mean honestly if you accept the second strategy, why worship such a being? Why take part in praising his name? If he is not perfectly good, why love him? If he is not all powerful, then he definitely should not be worshipped as the most powerful being.

  My question to you soft+gentle is: If you can accept the second strategy, why worship him?
• 
  16

  What is your purpose and passion ?

  by caliber in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it seems to me that many who leave jw's become very well informed about their former way of life and their desire to change from this life style.

  become very sarcastic and cynical , they seem to lack any sure direction or purpose in life.

  but for life to have.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheUbermensch

  We're all going to die, and we are the lucky ones.

  leavingwt, I was curious if this was from that wonderful first chapter of Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow,

  "We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here."

  He wants it read at his funeral... I don't blame him. ahahah
• 
  1495

  An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

  by AK - Jeff in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  estimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.

  that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.

  still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheUbermensch

  Just thought I'd cut and paste half an article as my entire response as well.

  Oh, before you theists say "but he could be allowing this evil for some greater good"

  (another half article from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy... MY holy book)

  Let’s suppose that Rowe’s evidential argument from evil succeeds in providing strong evidence in support of the claim that there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. What follows from this? In particular, would a theist who finds its impossible to fault Rowe’s argument be obliged to give up her theism? Not necessarily, for at least two further options would be available to such a theist.

  Firstly, the theist may agree that Rowe’s argument provides some evidence against theism, but she may go on to argue that there is independent evidence in support of theism which outweighs the evidence against theism. In fact, if the theist thinks that the evidence in support of theism is quite strong, she may employ what Rowe (1979: 339) calls “the G.E. Moore shift” (compare Moore 1953: ch.6). This involves turning the opponent’s argument on its head, so that one begins by denying the very conclusion of the opponent’s argument. The theist’s counter-argument would then proceed as follows:

  (not-3)	There exists an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
  (2)	An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
  (not-1)	(Therefore) It is not the case that there exist instances of horrendous evil which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

  Although this strategy has been welcomed by many theists as an appropriate way of responding to evidential arguments from evil (e.g., Mavrodes 1970: 95-97, Evans 1982: 138-39, Davis 1987: 86-87, Basinger 1996: 100-103) – indeed, it is considered by Rowe to be “the theist’s best response” (1979: 339) – it is deeply problematic in a way that is often overlooked. The G.E. Moore shift, when employed by the theist, will be effective only if the grounds for accepting not-(3) [the existence of the theistic God] are more compelling than the grounds for accepting not-(1) [the existence of gratuitous evil]. The problem here is that the kind of evidence that is typically invoked by theists in order to substantiate the existence of God – e.g., the cosmological and design arguments, appeals to religious experience – does not even aim to establish the existence of a perfectly good being, or else, if it does have such an aim, it faces formidable difficulties in fulfilling it. But if this is so, then the theist may well be unable to offer any evidence at all in support of not-(3), or at least any evidence of a sufficiently strong or cogent nature in support of not-(3). The G.E. Moore shift, therefore, is not as straightforward a strategy as it initially seems.

  Secondly, the theist who accepts Rowe’s argument may claim that Rowe has only shown that one particular version of theism – rather than every version of theism – needs to be rejected. A process theist, for example, may agree with Rowe that there is no omnipotent being, but would add that God, properly understood, is not omnipotent, or that God’s power is not as unlimited as is usually thought (see, e.g., Griffin 1976, 1991). An even more radical approach would be to posit a “dark side” in God and thus deny that God is perfectly good. Theists who adopt this approach (e.g., Blumenthal 1993, Roth 2001) would also have no qualms with the conclusion of Rowe’s argument.

  There are at least two problems with this second strategy. Firstly, Rowe’s argument is only concerned with the God of orthodoxtheism as described in Section I.1 above, not the God of some other version of theism. And so objections drawn from non-orthodox forms of theism fail to engage with Rowe’s argument (although such objections may be useful in getting us to reconsider the traditional understanding of God). A second problem concerns the worship-worthiness of the sort of deity being proposed. For example, would someone who is not wholly good and capable of evil be fit to be the object of our worship, total devotion and unconditional commitment? Similarly, why place complete trust in a God who is not all-powerful and hence not in full control of the world? (To be sure, even orthodox theists will place limits on God’s power, and such limits on divine power may go some way towards explaining the presence of evil in the world. But if God’s power, or lack thereof, is offered as the solution to the problem of evil – so that the reason why God allows evil is because he doesn’t have the power to prevent it from coming into being – then we are faced with a highly impotent God who, insofar as he is aware of the limitations in his power, may be considered reckless for proceeding with creation.)
• 
  1495

  An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

  by AK - Jeff in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  estimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.

  that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.

  still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheUbermensch

  Ahahahahahah.

  Of course there is no post about the refuted proofs towards Plantinga's Free Will Defense, including the Evidential Problem of Evil.

  (Taken from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

  Criticisms of Rowe’s argument tend to focus on its first premise, sometimes dubbed “the factual premise,” as it purports to state a fact about the world. Briefly put, the fact in question is that there exist instances of intense suffering which are gratuitous or pointless. As indicated above, an instance of suffering is gratuitous, according to Rowe, if an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented it without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. A gratuitous evil, in this sense, is a state of affairs that is not (logically) necessary to the attainment of a greater good or to the prevention of an evil at least as bad.

  i Rowe’s Case in Support of the Factual Premise

  Rowe builds his case in support of the factual premise by appealing to particular instances of human and animal suffering, such as the following:

  E1: the case of Bambi
  “In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering” (Rowe 1979: 337).

  Although this is presented as a hypothetical event, Rowe takes it to be “a familiar sort of tragedy, played not infrequently on the stage of nature” (1988: 119).

  E2: the case of Sue
  This is an actual event in which a five-year-old girl in Flint, Michigan was severely beaten, raped and then strangled to death early on New Year’s Day in 1986. The case was introduced by Bruce Russell (1989: 123), whose account of it, drawn from a report in the Detroit Free Press of January 3 1986, runs as follows:

  The girl’s mother was living with her boyfriend, another man who was unemployed, her two children, and her 9-month old infant fathered by the boyfriend. On New Year’s Eve all three adults were drinking at a bar near the woman’s home. The boyfriend had been taking drugs and drinking heavily. He was asked to leave the bar at 8:00 p.m. After several reappearances he finally stayed away for good at about 9:30 p.m. The woman and the unemployed man remained at the bar until 2:00 a.m. at which time the woman went home and the man to a party at a neighbor’s home. Perhaps out of jealousy, the boyfriend attacked the woman when she walked into the house. Her brother was there and broke up the fight by hitting the boyfriend who was passed out and slumped over a table when the brother left. Later the boyfriend attacked the woman again, and this time she knocked him unconscious. After checking the children, she went to bed. Later the woman’s 5-year old girl went downstairs to go to the bathroom. The unemployed man returned from the party at 3:45 a.m. and found the 5-year old dead. She had been raped, severely beaten over most of her body and strangled to death by the boyfriend.

  Following Rowe (1988: 120), the case of the fawn will be referred to as “E1″, and the case of the little girl as “E2″. Further, following William Alston’s (1991: 32) practice, the fawn will be named “Bambi” and the little girl “Sue”.

  Rowe (1996: 264) states that, in choosing to focus on E1 and E2, he is “trying to pose a serious difficulty for the theist by picking a difficult case of natural evil, E1 (Bambi), and a difficult case of moral evil, E2 (Sue).” Rowe, then, is attempting to state the evidential argument in the strongest possible terms. As one commentator has put it, “if these cases of evil [E1 and E2] are not evidence against theism, then none are” (Christlieb 1992: 47). However, Rowe’s almost exclusive preoccupation with these two instances of suffering must be placed within the context of his belief (as expressed in, e.g., 1979: 337-38) that even if we discovered that God could not have eliminated E1 and E2 without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse, it would still be unreasonable to believe this of all cases of horrendous evil occurring daily in our world. E1 and E2 are thus best viewed as representative of a particular class of evil which poses a specific problem for theistic belief. This problem is expressed by Rowe in the following way:

  (P) No good state of affairs we know of is such that an omnipotent, omniscient being’s obtaining it would morally justify that being’s permitting E1 or E2. Therefore,

  (Q) It is likely that no good state of affairs is such that an omnipotent, omniscient being’s obtaining it would morally justify that being in permitting E1 or E2.

  P states that no good we know of justifies God in permitting E1 and E2. From this it is inferred that Q is likely to be true, or that probably there are no goods which justify God in permitting E1 and E2. Q, of course, corresponds to the factual premise of Rowe’s argument. Thus, Rowe attempts to establish the truth of the factual premise by appealing to P.
• 
  1495

  An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

  by AK - Jeff in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  estimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.

  that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.

  still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheUbermensch

  I'm sorry, but did you say that I am being narrowminded for not accepting what you are saying? Have you once accepted what we are saying? The only one who did that was Psac.

  It is literally impossible for us to feed everyone who is hungry throughout the world. You are imagining finances and food as if it just appeared out of the air. Food has a price, everything has a price. The rich do not wish to pay for it. No one can tell the rich what to do with their money. It is theirs. It is wishful thinking, and hallucinatory to imagine that it IS possible for all 7 billion people in the world to eat three meals a day. It isn't possible to ship that much food to the remote places of the world that don't have food. You realize that a large percentage of African land can't even grow food? And hunger is just ONE problem. How do you explain disease?

  It doesn't matter. Your possibility is NOT a possibility. What proof or evidence have you given me? Can you say "Yes look, God was here, here is what he left for us to see that he is real"? NO. There is absolutely NO evidence or proof you have given me. This whole time you've spent dodging questions, or answering them in ways which you don't even answer them. Rather than answer the question you say something along the lines of "But... insert garbage to try and find wholes in the argument proposed when there are no wholes" GOD IS NOT LOGICAL. Everything must be logical, beyond our comprehension or not, logic is the building blocks of life, not cells, your 10th grade Biology class lied to you. Without logic, there is nothing. THAT is the point provided. You have YET to say ANYTHING meaningful about it. You have spewed garbage and utter bullshit. There should be an IQ prerequisite to use the Internet.

  And by the way, don't give me your peace. I don't want/need/respect your "peace". You help continue the existence of delusion and pain throughout the world. You are part of the reason people feel pain throughout the world, part of the reason people feel fear, part of the reason that people are killed, and diseases continue to exist. I don't want your sickening, deluded peace. Keep it to yourself and your other little brainwashed Jesus lovers. I've grown sick of you, sick of your existence. You are the epitome of theistic believers, the posterchild of modern delusion. You ignore evidence and proof because you're so mentally ill you believe your nonexistent savior is talking to you. Christianity, Islam, and religion in general is the only allowed form of mental insanity, other people are locked up in padded cells for what you do, they just say it's their friend Jim, or Joe, or Satan. Sad that you are allowed on the outside when helpless people with mental problems are locked up, and they're more rational than you will ever be. I hope my hurtful words have done damage. Stop posting on this thread, you continue to post the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over. I'm pretty sure most atheists and non-believers have come to the conclusion that all (however many of you) are deluded, insane, and/or stupid. I prefer all three.

  No Peace to you because you don't deserve peace

  MR
• 
  1495

  An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

  by AK - Jeff in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  estimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.

  that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.

  still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheUbermensch

  AGuest, I have to assume your beliefs to show you your own ideas. It's simply for the sake of the argument, didn't I say "Since you believe in God it must be God"? It's not that hard to understand....
• 
  1495

  An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

  by AK - Jeff in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  estimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.

  that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.

  still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheUbermensch

  I fully agree Jeff. There isn't much more information I can provide to people who don't even consider it a possibility. The entire conversation has been completely fruitless because of 3 reasons.

  1. Rejection of logic.

  2. Circular reasoning.

  3. Twisting of official religious literature, and then leaving it behind when it doesn't suit the way they see God.

  If there is no formality, and accepted basis, the premise can never be argued. Especially since reasons for believing in God are

  1. Just the fact that the Bible exists.

  2. Some personal experience which can never be authenticated.

  Besides that, no evidence can be given for the existence of any sort of God.

  Answers were actually given.

  I believe every answer from every theist was something along the lines of

  "We are starving our children" or "We allow it to happen."

  Of course it is physically impossible for any of us, even altogether as an entire human race, to feed the hungry and poor throughout the world. There will always be suffering.

  In fact, funnily enough, we can blame a lot on God without assuming that he stands by and watches it all occur.

  I believe someone stated something along the lines of

  "We spend billions on war, but not on medical treatment"

  Of course we don't have any cures for the more awful diseases (i.e. cancer, AIDS) but how many priests, or CO, or anyone else who devotes their life to their religion had potential to find the cure to one of these diseases, or find a solution to the problem of world hunger? We'll never know.

  Of course, to blame it on human beings is circular reasoning. We are imperfect beings made in the image of a perfect God, we make imperfect decisions, and one of them might be to let people starve. But then again, God is perfect, he could help them anytime, right? Why doesn't he? Because we can't? I don't really understand that one.

  I feel this discussion (a very intriguing topic for debate) has been greatly disappointing and disheartening simply because of absolute narrowmindedness. It's truly a pity.