Is Suffering Part of God's Plan?

you're wrong. You breath because the neurological impulses in the brain tells the body to expand and release the lunges. Your heart beats because of the AV and Semilunar Valves pumping and releasing blood
The reason those impulses still send messages is because God allows them to.
 
Anyone is foolish to put any faith in banks these days.

okay, then I have faith that a Chinook Salmon is lying in my bed right now reading a victoria secret magazine and wearing Oakley sunglasses dining on the blood of christ (which nowadays is grapejuice).....now if I walk in there...with my faith all certain...will it be there...will it exist...will it ever exist?
 
The reason those impulses still send messages is because God allows them to.

that's like saying I piss and :q:q:q:q because god allows me to :q:q:q:q/piss. Last time I checked I could be a saint and be quite often constipated as well as I could be a sinner and have some pretty sweet bowel movements.


Next you'll be telling me people are islamic, athiest, budhist, etc etc...because god allows them to be


so if you jerk off to kiddy porn...I'm telling god he's a fascist
 
that's like saying I piss and :q:q:q:q because god allows me to :q:q:q:q/piss. Last time I checked I could be a saint and be quite often constipated as well as I could be a sinner and have some pretty sweet bowel movements.


Next you'll be telling me people are islamic, athiest, budhist, etc etc...because god allows them to be


so if you jerk off to kiddy porn...I'm telling god he's a fascist
God even allows you to be a moron, Pete.
 
So how long have you known "foxpaws," Find?
Did you cross paths in person or are you both part of another internet community?

:D:D:D:D:D OK. now that is funny - worth coming back from a long weekend and logging on - just for that.
 
....for the record, I was being sarcastic.
I don't really think they are familiar with each other.
 
The reason those impulses still send messages is because God allows them to.

sure. he keeps bringing you back to post here, so we can have a laugh.
but then, i'm sure you can prove it's god and not a function of biology.
 
No, it is not a flaw in my argument it is incidental to my argument and a factor which I accounted for in post #120.
then there would be 20 billion or so different religions.
or did you mean in that post that only SOME come up with deity ideals from philosophy, etc.
so, not all.
yet again you adding something to an arguement that wasn't there.


You clearly can not (or will not) understand how materialism fits in the rationale for Atheism and how that rationale hinges on the presumption of materialism

i am talking of your standard everyday person. you keep pinning attributes there.
those attributes assume education to understand a difference.
apparently i need to make a simple statement into a page long essay so as not to confuse you. others have understood my statement, yet you the scholar are incapable.


Apparently you never made the connection between this notion and your argument against the notion of Atheism being rooted in materialism.

i'm still not talking of atheism. i guess the simple term would be ignorance.
a total lack of knowledge.

Yes some people could, in your original scenario, live their life without any conception of a god (or gods),

i would actually describe most, but this is what i have been saying.
thanks for finally agreeing.

What matters is that a belief system can rise up without any actual God.

there are a few that exist without deity, and many that claim deity.
so, how many are without an actual god?

but some people would develop a conception of a god (or gods) naturally as well (without it being "taught")

it would not spread throughout a society if not taught.
but yes, some would come up with it. that is obvious. it exists today.

I really see no reason to waste anymore time

i see no reason to continue replying to your inane circular reasoning.
as for this
I did ask for clarification in the first line of in my last post.

maybe ask for clarification of an arguement before answering.
not a dozen or 2 posts later.
 
yet again you adding something to an arguement that wasn't there.

Showing the inconsistencies and logical flaws in an argument is not "adding to an argument", or in any way misrepresenting it, as you say.

It rather clear that you want me to be misrepresenting your argument in some way and are working to distort reality to justify that desire.

Pathetic.

i am talking of your standard everyday person. you keep pinning attributes there.
those attributes assume education to understand a difference.

I have assumed no such thing and you know it. I simply assume basic skills of observation that everyone has, and a desire to make sense out of things one doesn't understand, which everyone does.

Now you are misrepresenting my argument in order to make it appear that I am misrepresenting or "adding to" your argument.

i'm still not talking of atheism. i guess the simple term would be ignorance.
a total lack of knowledge.

The argument still assumes that there is no God and therefore still assumes materialism.

i would actually describe most, but this is what i have been saying.
thanks for finally agreeing.

No it is not and you know it. You never said (or implied) that simply "some" could live without a conception of God. You claimed that without science and religion no conception of God would exist.
atheism is natural. god must be learned.(or brainwashed)
god would not be known. and you would run around never knowing god.
.there is no attempt to argue for a god, because there is no knowledge of one, and no need to argue against, as it isn't there.
Once again, you are betrayed by your actions in previous threads.
 
materialism
n noun
1 a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
2 Philosophy the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.


if you have no knowledge, you would not ponder whether anything else exists.
there must be other ideals in comparison. else it's not materialism, since materialism would not exist either.


I have assumed no such thing and you know it. I simply assume basic skills of observation that everyone has

everyone? so you assume everyone is capable of high level cause and effect?
you think everyone really worries about it?
you think everyones a philosopher?


Now you are misrepresenting my argument in order to make it appear that I am misrepresenting or "adding to" your argument.

no, just clarifying, and pointing out that you don't know nor understand my arguement at all.

No it is not and you know it. You never said (or implied) that simply "some" could live without a conception of God. You claimed that without science and religion no conception of God would exist.

as i said, next time ask for clarification first. not everybody understands the thoughts of others on short words.
atheism itself isn't a fitting word. i should have used something different. maybe that's why you keep plying materialism.

no belief is natural. most would never worry if this is all there is, and god would not be a part of it either.
 
Showing the inconsistencies and logical flaws in an argument is not "adding to an argument", or in any way misrepresenting it, as you say.

It rather clear that you want me to be misrepresenting your argument in some way and are working to distort reality to justify that desire.

blah blah blah blah

Quit.

His argument is that even before the argument of what you are putting faith into, materialism or a fictional book about a guy with great hair, you are born without knowledge of either, therefore without being taught about God, you are atheist. Agnostic would be a better term to use in this instance, and one can argue that as a person grows, people should and most will question their existence, but, his argument is that a person is born atheist, and has to learn everything else. This has nothing to do with materialism, faith or anything else you continue to insist he is talking about or avoiding. This is just a point in itself.
 
His argument is that even before the argument of what you are putting faith into, materialism or a fictional book about a guy with great hair, you are born without knowledge of either, therefore without being taught about God, you are atheist.

That is not what he is arguing. Maybe you should go back and re-read his first post; # 108.

He first says in post #108, "it doesn't take a jump to be athiest." This indicates what he is setting out to do in his argument. Hrmwrm was trying show that atheism doesn't require a leap of faith; that it does not require materialism.

This is his conclusion, "atheism is natural. god must be learned." However, if the idea of God is "learned" by simple, natural observation and rationalization (as the typical Atheist explanation for Theism claims), then it is no more "learned" then atheism would be. Only if it is explicitly taught could it be learned in the manner he was speaking and that rejects both the possibility of a transcendent God (assuming materialism in the process) and the possibility of gleaning the idea from natural observation and rationalization.

If hrmwrm had said agnosticism, that would have been one thing. But he did not. In fact, his original comment was aimed at proving atheism was not rooted in any faith.

I have said before that agnosticism is the only logical position. But a justification for agnosticism is not a justification for atheism. The two are different ideas. One makes a negative claim of no belief in and/or knowledge of God and the other makes a positive claim of a belief that God does not exist. There are not the same thing. If you are equating atheism with agnosticism then you can't understand hrmwrm's original argument or my argument

This has nothing to do with materialism, faith or anything else you continue to insist he is talking about or avoiding.

Again, if he had said agnosticism, that would be one thing. But he specifically said atheism and the justification for agnosticism is not the justification for atheism. The only way any justification for atheism makes sense is with an assumption of materialism and his original argument is no exception.
 
That is not what he is arguing. Maybe you should go back and re-read his first few posts;posts 108, 111 and 119.

He first says in post #108, "it doesn't take a jump to be athiest." This indicates what he is setting out to do in his argument. Hrmwrm was trying show that atheism doesn't require a leap of faith; that it does not require materialism.

This is his conclusion, "atheism is natural. god must be learned." However, if the idea of God is "learned" by simple, natural observation and rationalization (as the typical Atheist explanation for Theism claims), then it is no more "learned" then atheism would be. Only if it is explicitly taught could it be learned in the manner he was speaking and that rejects both the possibility of a transcendent God (assuming materialism) and the possibility of gleaning the idea from natural observation and rationalization.

If hrmwrm had said agnosticism, that would have been one thing. But he did not. In fact, his original comment was aimed at proving atheism was not rooted in any faith.

I have said before that agnosticism is the only logical position. But a justification for agnosticism is not a justification for atheism. The two are different ideas. One makes a negative claim of no belief in and/or knowledge of God and the other makes a positive claim of a belief that God does not exist. There are not the same thing. If you are equating atheism with agnosticism then you can't understand hrmwrm's original argument or my argument

Again, if he had said agnosticism, that would be one thing. But he specifically said atheism and the justification for one is not the justification for the other. The only way any justification for atheism makes sense is with and assumption of materialism and his original argument is no exception.

When you think about it though, atheism is not REALLY making a positive claim that there is no god just as it stands. (yes, I know they say there is no god, but you have to think beyond that for a second here) Atheism just is a state of having NO belief in god. Agnosticism is of course the natural state in a world where you are confronted with opposing beliefs prior to making a decision of your views, however, if a person were to be able to live without the suggestion of a god, they would be atheist. Now, I don't want to rehash the argument that materialism takes "faith", because that is silly semantics that are based primarily on personal beliefs and views, and much of it is self-serving. But, atheism, in and of itself, requires no faith. Questioning existence is where the argument of faith comes into play. It is not a prerequisite of being atheist to decide there is no god, the only prerequisite is to not have a belief in god.
 
When you think about it though, atheism is not REALLY making a positive claim that there is no god just as it stands. (yes, I know they say there is no god, but you have to think beyond that for a second here) Atheism just is a state of having NO belief in god.

No, you are talking about agnosticism, not atheism.

From the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief​

Or, if you want to use the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Atheism, the critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty​
Or you can go with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God​
There has been attempts in recent years by some in the atheist community to define down atheism and blur the lines between atheism and agnosticism. But that is a false argument rooted in deception.

The difference between not affirming one position (or any position) and affirming an opposite is subtle but relevant; especially when it comes to the rationale behind those positions.

When you don't affirm a position, you simply need to point out logical (or factual) flaws in opposing views.

When you affirm a position, you need to point out logical (or factual) flaws in opposing views as well as make a develop a rationale for your position.
Now, I don't want to rehash the argument that materialism takes "faith", because that is silly semantics that are based primarily on personal beliefs and views, and much of it is self-serving.

Dodging that argument is the only thing that is inherently self-serving. The differences between Atheism and Agnosticism or Theism start at that presupposition of materialism.

The fact is that atheism is premised on materialism. If you cannot give a logical justification for that assumption then it is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence; faith.

I told you before that most atheists I know don't want to confront that presumption of materialism. ;)

It is not a prerequisite of being atheist to decide there is no god, the only prerequisite is to not have a belief in god.

You have that bass ackwards. As I have shown, atheism REQUIRES a belief that God does NOT exist, not simply a lack of any belief.
 
No, you are talking about agnosticism, not atheism.

From the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief​

Or, if you want to use the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Atheism, the critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty​
Or you can go with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God​
There has been attempts in recent years by some in the atheist community to define down atheism and blur the lines between atheism and agnosticism. But that is a false argument rooted in deception.

The difference between not affirming one position (or any position) and affirming an opposite is subtle but relevant; especially when it comes to the rationale behind those positions.

When you don't affirm a position, you simply need to point out logical (or factual) flaws in opposing views.

When you affirm a position, you need to point out logical (or factual) flaws in opposing views as well as make a develop a rationale for your position.


Dodging that argument is the only thing that is inherently self-serving. The differences between Atheism and Agnosticism or Theism start at that presupposition of materialism.

The fact is that atheism is premised on materialism. If you cannot give a logical justification for that assumption then it is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence; faith.

I told you before that most atheists I know don't want to confront that presumption of materialism. ;)

You have that bass ackwards. As I have shown, atheism REQUIRES a belief that God does NOT exist, not simply a lack of any belief.

There you go again pulling out the most self-serving definitions you can find without thought to context or otherwise. Atheism just means without theism. Agnosticism requires the knowledge of a "god option" as agnosticism means that you are undecided or believe it is impossible to prove it either way. Anyways, if you have no knowledge of something, its non-existence is a certainty.
 
There you go again pulling out the most self-serving definitions you can find without thought to context or otherwise. Atheism just means without theism. Agnosticism requires the knowledge of a "god option" as agnosticism means that you are undecided or believe it is impossible to prove it either way. Anyways, if you have no knowledge of something, its non-existence is a certainty.

Apparently you are incapable of looking beyond your preconceived notions.

Why should anyone take you credibly? Why do you even engage people on the politics section of this forum?
 
There you go again pulling out the most self-serving definitions you can find without thought to context or otherwise. Atheism just means without theism. Agnosticism requires the knowledge of a "god option" as agnosticism means that you are undecided or believe it is impossible to prove it either way. Anyways, if you have no knowledge of something, its non-existence is a certainty.

'Don't you dare to try to confuse me with facts. Definitions mean nothing, because that's not what I want to think!!'
KS
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top