Anyway I meant a description of what could happen without considering the existence of God.
I get up, go to work, have friends, make dinner, watch movies just like everyone else. And I get called evil.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Anyway I meant a description of what could happen without considering the existence of God.
I get up, go to work, have friends, make dinner, watch movies just like everyone else. And I get called evil.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
SBF is approaching Trumpian levels of honesty.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Yes, this is the very problem of evil. But WHY it happens in an atheist scenario?
What is an "atheist scenario"?
for arguments sake if God had stopped the tsunami he would have been expressing control over the future. This is a huge no no as the future needs to remain open
Wait, so there is something your god can't do? Then why is it "god"?
Natural laws will not be violated, never have been, and have served us well as a species to get here. Beyond that, as a human, be thankful, enjoy the extra perks, the luxuries that our times allow. stop whining. stop demanding more than you see that is already given. an ironclad promise that the laws are reliable, can work for and with you.
But by his existence, god violates natural laws. So that's right out. The rest of your post is just you asking to stop asking questions about your apparently impotent god.
My position regarding the purpose of existence of the universe (including the origin and problem of evil, of course) consists in analysing the amount of explanations we have about it. Basically there are 4 metaphysical explanations I find them very interesting and sums up the reasonings of humans about cosmogony.
I would love to hear those as soon as you show us that you even know what positivism is. Why are you afraid to do that? What are you hiding?
Keep having that same evil lack of faith that will do nothing but cast you out of God's plans for ever. It is amazing how you and other people continue to say that God does not care to help us.
If your god exists, he is impotent. On the plus side, I'm evil now, so yaaaay!
And these animals ranges from bears, rhinos cats, elephants, wolves and all the others. You said until something better comes along, well, we are what's better and I assure you that we are as better as it can possibly get.
Go fight a bear and let me know how that goes for you. Feel free to ask you impotent god for help.
Remember, it is not God's fault that we have all this suffering
It most certainly is your impotent god's fault. You wish to claim he is omni-everything, yet not responsible for anything. I mean, the poor guy can't even lift a pebble or appear in front of people. A baby can do that.
Or if thoughtful atheists are embarrassed by atheists who go around insisting God has been disproved and believers must be either ignorant or dishonest.
Of course not. I mean, any specific god a believe chooses to define can be disproved, of course, but a nebulous concept which the claimants can't define? You can't disprove that. Just politely explain it and move on.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
If we didn't have moving tectonic plates we wouldn't be here according to a popular hypothesis - so what's up with your desire to know what posotivism means viv
Do you actually read and understand what you are posting about? I ask because .... it seems you don't.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
The main view of the people directly involved in natural disasters share this view. This is the very conclusion from the majority of victims. This point must be considered.
First, we're still waiting on your clarification on your definition of posotivism and your claim that you got it right as compared to Nicolau's definition. Why are you afraid to do that?
In any event, first, how are you able to claim that the conclusion is from the "majority" of victims? Are you citing a study? Did you talk to them? How are you aware of what the dead victims, including children and babies, said?
I kind of think this claim is bullshit.
You cannot blame people directly involved in the disaster if they find the faith in God explanation better than "shit happens". Rational minds search for meaning and these people chose not "shit happens", even under extreme circumstances
Ah, the old "I don't know what 'victim blaming' (or posovitism) is, but please eat some of this BS I just made up" gambit.
Cofty didn't blame anyone for anything. Try being honest for once.
You cannot have it both ways. Mystery and victim blaming are out of your deck of cards
Yeah, his comment was neither of those things. Do you actually know what any of the things you attempt to talk about are? I ask, because it doesn't seem so.
BTW, "shit happens" to me is an euphemism for secular mystery. So IMHO you can't even use the "shit happens" either.
That's because actually knowing why it happens involves science. It makes sense you would consider that a mystery.
Instead you should scientifically demonstrate for us why our minds perceiving evil at all (natural and man-made) is an evolutionary advantage.
What was exactly the evolutionary pressure that made us the only specie to perceive evil?
First, how do you know that we are the only species to perceive evil? Second, in what way is your question related to this discussion? Third, it actually HAS been researched, there is a good answer and it did involve science, so I am in no way surprised you aren't aware of it.
BTW, don't forget to give us the what what on your definition of posotivism. The foundation of literally everything you say rests on you being correct on your definition of it, so it's somewhat surprising you're done everything you can to avoid showing that you know what it is, especially since it would be so easy to do. It's almost like your quoted words on it won't match reality so you're afraid to do it.
Anywho, tootles!
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
I am a realistic deist
So.... that's not a thing that exists.
If all the money donated at the retail level truly would reach these devastated areas
But if they donated all the money, then there would be no jobs, businesses, etc., and now all those at the retail level would be destitute and poor. Hardly realistic.
impenetrable shelters with medical facilities, vitels . could have been constructed.
So, those aren't a thing that exists. Now you need those retailers to generate tax income to fund research for this. Hardly realistic if they just gave it all away.
I am not blaming the sufferers, but do not agree that the creator, giver of the possibilities should be blamed for the inability of individuals, families or societies to mitigate danger.
You're quite willing to pretend that the people who didn't cause the problem should get the blame for not fixing what they didn't they break and be on the hook for it by proposing solutions that are unworkable and don't exists.
We've learned two things. Your god is still as asshole and there is no such thing as a realistic deist.
Why do you worship an asshole?
Could not these seeming setbacks be increments in life's journey to better adaptation?
Oh, well, if you think that killing children could be a way to a better life, I now no longer wonder why you worship an asshole.
Absolutely disgusting.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Consider tsunamis to be accidents, uncontrolled events of tectonic plate movements
Sorry, if there is an omni-everything god, then there can be no uncontrolled event or accident.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
and responsible for billions and billions of lives.
So what? If you have 100 children, it's OK to murder a few of them, is that your argument?
So I can make an assertion that free will is more important and valuable than mortal life itself.
Well, you can, but it's not at all related to this discussion. No one was choosing to die in the tsunami. Your god was the root cause and let it continue. He's an asshole.
Oh, BTW, you still haven't shown how your claims about posotivism match reality. Specifically, you claimed that your definition of posotivism matched what Nicolau posted, so far you've not shown that to be true. Why have you run away from that? What have you to fear if truth is on your side?
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Apparently the problem could be supernaturally intervened without damaging free will. But the butterfly effect prevents me to accept this statement.
So.... it's not free will to be killed by a tsunami. The butterfly effect would not be a problem for an omni-everything god, such as the one you worship. In fact, far from a problem, it's wouldn't even be a thing that exists because everything that happens is according to his will.
Your god is responsible for millions of deaths. It's just that simple. He's an asshole, which is why you should worship his creator, Unicorn Sparkle Pony.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
And I am sure you have not read all his books.
You just believe he is wrong because some one told you he is wrong.
It's hilarious to see the hubris of people, ignorantly making claims about others that they can't possibly know. Of course, if you believe in invisible sky fairies and aliens breeding humans to fight wars, it's not surprising.
However, believing we "know enough", is often precisely a symptom of not knowing very much at all. It's recently been called the "Dunning-Kruger effect", where our confidence of knowledge or expertise in a subject is inversely proportional to our mastery of the subject.
That's not what the Dunning-Kreuger effect is. Ironically, as your post illustrates, you suffer from the condition you misidentified.
We may think we've got a handle on the nature of reality, the universe, how things worked and likely developed. Who is to say?
Who is this "we" you speak for? Certainly not the people doing the investigating, who plainly will tell you there are many mysteries, fundamental mysteries to be solved.
I ask because you keep attempting to use philosophy, science and evidence in your posts, as if you know what you are doing, but you keep doing it so poorly, it's as if you lack the skills to judge whether or not you are doing it well because, if you could, you would have the skills to do it well.
If only there was a name for that....