-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Beadle & Grimm Interview With StarTrekBookClub.com
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
BUT, GOD GAVE MAN FREE WILL. THAT NEGATES EVERYTHING.
/universal catch-all excuse
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot people very
angry and been widely regarded as a bed move.
Well done, sir/madam, well done.
You just said “well done” to Casemods…
the irony here
Adams FTW
Like all attempts to explain the existence of suffering while spouting the belief in god, it can be demolished with two words:
Describe Heaven.
Is there “Free Will” in heaven? Is there suffering/evil in heaven?
Hi everyone! What’s going on in this thread?
No way dude, no free will in heaven – you sing!
You sing in the morning, you sing in the evening, you sing all day.
You Sing HIS Praise!
Constantly. Forever. Everlasting. YOU SING!
And God help you if you sing out of tune!!!!!
…….signed; Lucy Fur.
Old as the internets. Always fun to see, though.
I like the following shit storm better.
Before you Christians try to explain the problem of evil, you should probably try to prove that your god exists, or that the bible is moral. Just a tip from someone that hasn’t jumped on the superstition bandwagon.
Which, seeing as you are the product of Western civilization aka two THOUSAND years of Judeo-Christian morals, ethics and history, culminating in the most advanced civilization in the history of the human race, puts every Christian in the unfair position of attempting to convince a fish that water 1)exists 2)is wet.
Did you know that a religion can be a better alternative to barbarism even if the religion’s god is not real? What civilization were *you* raised in?
Oh, and have you heard of Japan?
What are you, korinthian? IOW, what is your God concept? The Judeo-Christian concept is incorrect, you say (superstition), so can you, korinthian, imagine better what a/the creator God would truly be like otherwise when it comes to evil? Also, the issue of there being evil as a real objectively true problem for man and animal is a not just a problem for a theist to grapple with in their worldview, don’t you know (?)
I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe in gods because there’s a rather glaring lack of evidence.
If I were a god with lots of power, I wouldn’t spawn An Adversary in the first place, or if I couldn’t foresee his coming I’d lock him up once he rebelled or did something evil.
I don’t believe in a universe where there are no ills (it’s part of the natural order), but were I a deity I’d remove a select few things from the world (pedophilia, rape, and disease that cause prolonged suffering to name a few).
Also, if I made rules for human (not stupid rules about collecting sticks, genital mutilation, etc) I’d punish the offender *instantly* and *visibly* so there’d be no question doing something was wrong, and everyone would know there was a god. None of that silly “I might punish you after you’ve died” nonsense.
I’d speak to humanity directly, not through a corrupt priesthood.
Are those ideas not improvements over the Christian god? I think they are.
Should we refer to you an “Mein Furhrer” as well?
*as
Why do you say that? Is that a title you use often?
Feel free to expand on why you think I wouldn’t be a more good and just god than yours.
On the contrary bro. You basically not only described the roles and actions God took in much of the OT and NT, but you went on to call it ideal…in two different posts.
It gave me a little chub until I realized that that’s fundamental bible info that you clearly don’t know. Even if you think the Bible is “My Big Book of Myths” much of what you claim God lacks is still basic shit you should’ve known about ESPECIALLY SINCE you like to run around here screaming about how much you hate it.
But anger and arrogance like yours is usually indicative of ignorance, so I don’t know why this is a surprise.
Let’s see what he did in the OT/NT, shall we?
Lock up Satan? Not quite in the way that we both understand I meant. Apparently he’s quite free to run around doing things on/to earth, planting fossils being one of his dastardly deeds. Also, your god’s too dense to predict Satan’s coming and preventing it.
Remove the worst ills afflicting mankind? Nope, he even orders/commits some of it in the bible.
Stupid rules? Yep, those are there and affected people for thousands of years. Did he remove some of those rules? If he did (Christians disagree) the Jews still have them (bad thing).
Speaking to mankind directly? From what I remember he used prophets to talk through (and a bush, for some reason). In any case, speaking through humans seemed to be his preferred method of communication.
Either way, he seems incapable of speaking to mankind directly today. I’m not sure if talking through a priest is worse or better than talking through a book, but it’s still pretty damn stupid.
I did not say my hypothetical godhood was ideal, I only said it was better than the job your god’s done. Perhaps that’s ‘ideal +1’ to you, but for a thinking person it’s most likely not.
Your god communicates in the exact same way all the other gods (that you think are imaginary/non-existent) do, doesn’t that tell you something? If it doesn’t (I wouldn’t be surprised), let me spell it out: gods always talk through humans because it’s the humans that are making it all up. It’s so simple that I wonder how you’ve managed to miss it over all these years!
You are fucking retarded, there is no such thing as an “agnostic atheist” the two are disparate ideas. You can be one of four things: theist, agnostic, apatheist or atheist. Respectively: you believe in God, you don’t know one way or the other, you don’t care, or you believe there is no God. The fact you call yourself an “agnostic atheist” proves that you haven’t thought about what you actually are, meaning you are most likely an apatheist. You can be agnostic existentialist, agnostic relativist… naturalist, whatever. But agnosticism is in no way tied to atheism. People like you make agnostics look bad because someone who hasn’t done their homework is labeling themselves something they clearly don’t know enough about.
Try this, maybe it will help:
www.loneatheist.com/uploads/2/8/2/3/2823722/5001325_orig.jpg
Why is he fucking retarded? You don’t have to only pick one of those terms to describe yourself because gnosticism deals with knowing and theism deals with belief. It’s totally possible to not accept a claim (making me an atheist) but also not claim to know whether there is a god or not (making me an agnostic). I don’t believe in god but I also don’t claim to know there are no gods. There’s no possible way I could prove it even if I did claim it. So I’m an agnostic atheist.
Also, your image seems misleading. “God doesn’t exist=Atheist” is misrepresenting what atheism really is: a lack of belief in god(s). The image, like you, are mixing up knowledge and belief.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Looks like you’re the one that didn’t do his homework.
Also, that chart is made by FEVA (the Fellowship for Evangelism in the Visual Arts) Ministries, so perhaps you should not trust sources that are known to distribute misinformation. Ask an atheist next time.
There is no heaven and there is no hell. There’s just Delaware.
There is only one god. Tiki God. And he is drunk as all hell and coming to rape your puppies.
“Hide yo kids! Hide yo puppies!”
don’t you mean Ponies?
I think of a spoiled child every time I read this saying “if my parents can stop something bad from happening to me, but don’t, it must be because they hate me.”
Depends on how bad, doesn’t it?
A parent who does something that directly or indirectly causes harm to their child and does nothing to prevent it is guilty of neglect, if not child abuse.
Well said; on first read, I agree with you.
But then I ask: are you a parent? If I tell my 5 year old child not to run down a gravely slope, but he does, and slips and scrapes up his face, am I guilty of neglect? I am capable of carrying him down the hill, strapping him into a stroller, or locking him in my house. I have enough wisdom to foresee the consequences of his action (something which, to him, is a great unknowable mystery), but I proceed to let him harm himself, not out of neglect, but because he must learn. When my child scrapes up his face, it seems to him to be the end of the world, and his pain, to him, seems unbearable and life threatening. He sees the fact that I no longer carry him or allow him to ride in the stroller as great abuses. So why are my actions in any way justifiable? Because he must learn about reality. He could learn by following my instructions, or he can learn by making painful errors.
You didn’t pile up the gravel, place your child atop it and walk away.
The parenthood analogy is an ill-fitting one because when bad things happen to humanity it’s not a few scratches and a character building moment; it could mean life or death, potentially for many, many people. And if death on a large scale is a trivial matter to god then worshiping him seems backwards and frankly a little strange.
You’re right, it doesn’t fit the god that most religions teach. It would only fit if God is our literal parent, raising us up for some kind of Eternal adulthood, where the earth-shattering tragedies from our perspective are, from his perspective, only minor scratches.
What I am saying, though, is that Epicurus’s second line of reasoning is false and too quick to judgment if, in reality, we are merely angry 5-year-olds convinced that our limited perspective is the absolute reality. When he says that the fact that God is unwilling to prevent evil means he is malevolent, he’s making very big assumptions about what the will and purpose of a god should be. I won’t downplay human tragedy, but if, in reality, we are eternal beings, then what is death, really? Could it actually be a character building experience?
What I’m saying is that this line of logic makes me reject the dogma that God is merely raising us like a twisted science project, putting us through hell just so he can let the few of us that joined the right club sit on clouds and play harps for eternity.
I can only assume that the implication is that as God created the universe and all that’s in it then evil is logically a creation of God, and so in leaving us to suffer at the hands of evil he’s indirectly responsible for that suffering.
Then here we question the dogma that God created “everything” and what is included in the definition of “everything.” If god created us as his playthings, and scripted our universe like a video game, then we have every right to question the necessity of the basic operating rules. But what if God is playing by other, more basic, rules? Did God write Mathematics? Logic? Physics? Causality? Or does he operate in the same program that we do (only with a much greater understanding of the rules and how to manipulate them)? If God did not write the basic operating procedures of the universe, but “merely” manipulates them like building materials, then God might have bounds. What if one of those bounds is that, in order for us to grow (on an eternal time-line), he must allow us free will and opposition, just like we, as parents, are bound to do for our children in our limited world?
Thank you, by the way, for the civil, philosophical discussion. This is how truth is found, not through screaming our positions while plugging our ears.
also: REPOOOST.
Humanity: forever sticking its tongue in the light socket and then demanding to know why God let it happen.
God: forever failing with his creation, punishing everyone and then blaming free will.
I can’t believe you people think the omnipotent guy is the one with less responsibility.