Fisherman:
Can you please just state your point, or maybe take some time out to think on what has been said, and come back with a reply that is actually a response to the question of the topic?
Rather than just picking on parts of others posts and being vague?
You stated earlier that I am ignoring what you were saying about knowledge and belief, but frankly I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make.
People lead busy lives you know, forum discussions seem to be more productive when someone answers a point directly and clearly, not giving vague responses and long stories with no explanation.. then expecting everyone to take the time to work out how their post is relevant.
In my last post, I took a lot of time, and I don't have much to spare, to plan out a response to you.
To help you to see that trying to reconcile animal suffering with a loving and caring God is really a waste of time. Especially when evidence for that God is utterly lacking, in reality.
Everything becomes clearer once you stop wasting your life pondering on theological questions, trying to relate a cold and merciless universe to a loving and personal God who designed it..
a God that I am certain does not exist, based on the evidence available in this thread and throughout natural history.
I was trying to help you, in my own way.
You then pick on the word 'perhaps', seemingly ignoring the context of the post, that shows I am an atheist.
I am certain that a caring God does not exist because there is no evidence of it, at least none that does not fall apart under scrutiny.
Whether an uncaring and impersonal God exists is not the theme of this thread, it's about the concept of people believing in a personal God that they can love, yet ( even if it were to hypothetically exist)
it has allowed, and is allowing animal suffering to continue with no logical justification. So how is that loving or caring?
If you can read from the OP onwards and follow the context of the discussion, you will find that to be the case.
The Bible God (a concept of a divine being based on attributes mentioned in the Bible) is often brought up because millions of people still believe in and worship it, as though their god existed and gave a damn what they do or are going through right now.
Logic cannot be applied until someone defines their belief.
So what kind of God do you believe in?
A God that created all things and cares for the creation?
When I used the word 'perhaps', I spoke in a way someone might speak to a child and say, for example: ''Well, I don't think Santa will be able to bring you an F1 racing car this year, it might not fit down the chimney. Perhaps you need to choose a different present?'...
The parent in the example doesn't want to destroy the child's belief that a Santa Claus exists at this point, but someone needs to tell them that they cannot have what they want, and they need to consider a different option because reality doesn't afford us the power to make everything how we would like things to be. That's life. Santa Claus and Superman don't exist.
I think that my point was clear, seeing as the next two posters understood it.
As to your story, if you had examined the available physical evidence (by measuring the money out in this example) in the first place,
you would have discovered the fact that you did not have the right amount of money. Your own assumptions, as well as your trust in the teller, had led you to the wrong conclusion.
I am guessing that was your point (until you explain yourself clearly), and also you are inferring that atheists are making assumptions.
A person can go on believing that they have a true understanding of reality, and they feel that they 'know' a higher power must exist that cares for his creation, despite all evidence to the contrary. (Like you thought you had the correct amount of money).
That's up to them.
But some of us try to help others to first measure there beliefs, such as a belief in a loving God, against (referring to your illustration)
the 'ruler' of evidence and reason, as the creditor in your story did, because it saves a lot of otherwise wasted time.
Some even throw away their lives because of a belief.
The 'God of love' of the Bible is both internally inconsistent within the Bible, and also with all available physical evidence throughout millions of years.
So he can be verified as not existing, by using logic and the available evidence.
Do you have a response as to why your loving God has either caused or allowed (dependent on your own view of creation) innocent animals to suffer and even to go extinct, long before the so-called 'fall' occurred?
I'll await your response, though I expect just another long story or a quote of one word from my or someone else's post.
In which case, I'm not wasting any more time in replying.
Can you please just state your point, or maybe take some time out to think on what has been said, and come back with a reply that is actually a response to the question of the topic?
Rather than just picking on parts of others posts and being vague?
You stated earlier that I am ignoring what you were saying about knowledge and belief, but frankly I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make.
People lead busy lives you know, forum discussions seem to be more productive when someone answers a point directly and clearly, not giving vague responses and long stories with no explanation.. then expecting everyone to take the time to work out how their post is relevant.
In my last post, I took a lot of time, and I don't have much to spare, to plan out a response to you.
To help you to see that trying to reconcile animal suffering with a loving and caring God is really a waste of time. Especially when evidence for that God is utterly lacking, in reality.
Everything becomes clearer once you stop wasting your life pondering on theological questions, trying to relate a cold and merciless universe to a loving and personal God who designed it..
a God that I am certain does not exist, based on the evidence available in this thread and throughout natural history.
I was trying to help you, in my own way.
You then pick on the word 'perhaps', seemingly ignoring the context of the post, that shows I am an atheist.
I am certain that a caring God does not exist because there is no evidence of it, at least none that does not fall apart under scrutiny.
Whether an uncaring and impersonal God exists is not the theme of this thread, it's about the concept of people believing in a personal God that they can love, yet ( even if it were to hypothetically exist)
it has allowed, and is allowing animal suffering to continue with no logical justification. So how is that loving or caring?
If you can read from the OP onwards and follow the context of the discussion, you will find that to be the case.
The Bible God (a concept of a divine being based on attributes mentioned in the Bible) is often brought up because millions of people still believe in and worship it, as though their god existed and gave a damn what they do or are going through right now.
Logic cannot be applied until someone defines their belief.
So what kind of God do you believe in?
A God that created all things and cares for the creation?
When I used the word 'perhaps', I spoke in a way someone might speak to a child and say, for example: ''Well, I don't think Santa will be able to bring you an F1 racing car this year, it might not fit down the chimney. Perhaps you need to choose a different present?'...
The parent in the example doesn't want to destroy the child's belief that a Santa Claus exists at this point, but someone needs to tell them that they cannot have what they want, and they need to consider a different option because reality doesn't afford us the power to make everything how we would like things to be. That's life. Santa Claus and Superman don't exist.
I think that my point was clear, seeing as the next two posters understood it.
As to your story, if you had examined the available physical evidence (by measuring the money out in this example) in the first place,
you would have discovered the fact that you did not have the right amount of money. Your own assumptions, as well as your trust in the teller, had led you to the wrong conclusion.
I am guessing that was your point (until you explain yourself clearly), and also you are inferring that atheists are making assumptions.
A person can go on believing that they have a true understanding of reality, and they feel that they 'know' a higher power must exist that cares for his creation, despite all evidence to the contrary. (Like you thought you had the correct amount of money).
That's up to them.
But some of us try to help others to first measure there beliefs, such as a belief in a loving God, against (referring to your illustration)
the 'ruler' of evidence and reason, as the creditor in your story did, because it saves a lot of otherwise wasted time.
Some even throw away their lives because of a belief.
The 'God of love' of the Bible is both internally inconsistent within the Bible, and also with all available physical evidence throughout millions of years.
So he can be verified as not existing, by using logic and the available evidence.
Do you have a response as to why your loving God has either caused or allowed (dependent on your own view of creation) innocent animals to suffer and even to go extinct, long before the so-called 'fall' occurred?
I'll await your response, though I expect just another long story or a quote of one word from my or someone else's post.
In which case, I'm not wasting any more time in replying.