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.