|
Post by jody on Jan 7, 2013 22:34:17 GMT 10
ugh...same old same old. This question has been answered over and over and over...are you atheists a bit thick or what?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 7, 2013 22:41:13 GMT 10
The question is valid.
If there is a god, he is responsible. Why does he kill children? If there is a god, he'd do something.
Very simple proof that god either doesn't exist or if he does exist, he is a complete bastard.
|
|
|
Post by fat on Jan 7, 2013 23:54:43 GMT 10
So if God doesn't exist and Children still die perhaps you are the complete bastard for doing nothing about it.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 8, 2013 0:35:11 GMT 10
Human greed and selfishness is not God's doing.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 8, 2013 7:56:21 GMT 10
So if God doesn't exist and Children still die perhaps you are the complete bastard for doing nothing about it. Well, if I was omnipotent and the supposed creator of everything, I would do something. As I am not, I do what I can.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 8, 2013 7:57:10 GMT 10
Human greed and selfishness is not God's doing. What, so he only created the good bits?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2013 8:08:02 GMT 10
Human greed and selfishness is not God's doing. Well, presumably, if your god created humans he/she/it also created human greed and selfishness.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 8, 2013 10:04:52 GMT 10
The theists appear incapable of making that rather obvious connection.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 8, 2013 10:20:04 GMT 10
“Even a mirror will not show you yourself, if you do not wish to see”
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 8, 2013 13:56:59 GMT 10
“Even a mirror will not show you yourself, if you do not wish to see” Gee, that helped a lot. Bit like the non-existent god.
|
|
|
Post by jody on Jan 8, 2013 14:19:18 GMT 10
If more people would be less greedy, we wouldn't have these issues in the world.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 8, 2013 14:23:51 GMT 10
If there was a god,there wouldn't be so many greedy people in the first place.
After all, He created them (allegedly).
|
|
|
Post by jody on Jan 8, 2013 14:29:48 GMT 10
any excuse eh!
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 8, 2013 15:17:04 GMT 10
No, either god is responsible for everything or nothing. No inbetweens.
I vote for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Jan 8, 2013 19:12:49 GMT 10
There can only either be no god or a god thats nothing more than a sick twisted psychopath, there is no other option. If I stood idly by today while my child was being tortured and nailed to a cross without doing anything about it I would likely be up on charges yet its fine for god. Also all of the drownings and nukings of cities and stuff by god its just the actions of a deranged serial killer, and the fact that he'd throw my dear non believing Grandmother into the pit of hell for all of eternity just because she was a non believer is an act of complete bastardry that only a sick mental patient would engage in.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 13, 2013 4:14:54 GMT 10
40,000 to 50,000 fatalities per day where is god and jesus? they dont matter - the 50k people that die every day Have you forgotten that ALL men die?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 13, 2013 4:16:06 GMT 10
I'm certain that's what lies between your ears, also.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 13, 2013 4:20:19 GMT 10
No, either god is responsible for everything or nothing. No inbetweens. Everything would include your moral judgements, which would really make it impossible for you to determine this was evil. -Wouldn't it? Have you considered there may be good reasons as to why bad things happen? Or perhaps it occurs as a result of man's autonomy? Would you render it a mistake attributed to God, that you have the ability to choose good from evil?
|
|
|
Post by fat on Jan 13, 2013 7:37:02 GMT 10
No, either god is responsible for everything or nothing. No inbetweens. I vote for nothing. OK - so there are still children starving - do you care or not? Or are you happy that they are so you can justify your non-belief. If the situation offends you get off your arse and do something about it like the millions of Christians who are moved to donate their money or their time to helping others because they know these suffering ones are also made in the image of God.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 13, 2013 8:00:26 GMT 10
No, either god is responsible for everything or nothing. No inbetweens. I vote for nothing. OK - so there are still children starving - do you care or not? Or are you happy that they are so you can justify your non-belief. If the situation offends you get off your arse and do something about it like the millions of Christians who are moved to donate their money or their time to helping others because they know these suffering ones are also made in the image of God. Who says Atheists like me don't help out? That is a pretty bad misjudgement from you there Mr Fat (and totally unlike you), I thought you were Veritas or Skippy for a moment.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 13, 2013 8:01:41 GMT 10
No, either god is responsible for everything or nothing. No inbetweens. Everything would include your moral judgements, which would really make it impossible for you to determine this was evil. -Wouldn't it? Have you considered there may be good reasons as to why bad things happen? Or perhaps it occurs as a result of man's autonomy? Would you render it a mistake attributed to God, that you have the ability to choose good from evil? It is not because of God that I can differentiate between good and evil. God had nothing to do with it. Otherwise, how do YOU explain paedophile priests?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 17, 2013 13:00:41 GMT 10
I can explain pedophile priests in the same way I can explain any immoral action. People are autonomous. They have the god-given capacity to choose between good and evil.
And God respects that freedom, because forcing a person to do right against their will, would be, by definition, evil.
And since morality is defined as God's initial intention, evil is against his nature, so he won't intervene for the sake of removing another's freedom.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 17, 2013 13:04:51 GMT 10
It's hearsay.
|
|