Is Suffering Part of God's Plan?

[shagdrum]

I can easily point that out. You only quoted the first line of what he said and tried to represent that as an attempt by him to circumvent the "leap of faith" materialism takes.

Again, where did I misrepresent him? In the context of the thread and the argument he was making in that context, it is abundantly clear that he was looking to circumvent the materialist point by trying to show how Atheism is logical without that presumption. In fact, it you look at all his posts on it, instead of cherry picking his third post on the topic (which is all you cite) that fact is abundantly clear.

Here is his first post:

it doesn't take a jump to be athiest. take away everything you know of science and religion.
there still is no god.
the jumps you speak of are only from a religious sided arguement.
atheism is natural. god must be learned.(or brainwashed)

and here is his second post:

it's not materialist. as i said, take away all ideals garnered from science and religion.
god would not be known. and you would run around never knowing god.
to have a debate, you would need a god ideal first.
which has to be taught.
but i guess one wouldn't be atheist, as there would be no denial.

It is abundantly clear that, when hrmwrm talks about taking away, "all ideals garnered from science and religion", he views materialism (and thus metaphysics) as coming from science and/or religion and that is why he is attempting to remove them from the debate. The underlined portions highlight that fact.

There is also the history of hrmwrm's posts in other threads in response to the challenge of materialism that come into play and that you are likely unaware of.

Did you really think I couldn't point out how you misrepresented his statement?

You still haven't!

The best you have mustered is a sloppy argument citing a cherry picked quote and rooted in either an ignorance of the actual context of the discussion or a willful disregard of that context; a disregard of the truth.

Your childish petulance is exceedingly tiresome. I don't suffer fools well and unfortunately, foolishness, petulance and intellectual childishness is all you have to offer.

 

[KD00LS]

it doesn't take a jump to be athiest. take away everything you know of science and religion.
there still is no god.
the jumps you speak of are only from a religious sided arguement.
atheism is natural. god must be learned.(or brainwashed)

I might agree to an extent, but I'd have to inquire about where the idea of God came from before this was all taught.

 

[hrmwrm]

I might agree to an extent, but I'd have to inquire about where the idea of God came from before this was all taught.

then ask yourself why there are so many different beliefs.
monotheistic, polytheistic, without a god and continuing, spirits of the forest, sky, etc.
it is an ancient way of explaining things that were not understood and not easily explained without the profound understanding we enjoy today.

ancient societies were pretty superstitious of things.
and once imbedded, it is hard to remove these superstitions.
whole societies are created around superstitious myths.

 

[hrmwrm]

It is abundantly clear that, when hrmwrm talks about taking away, "all ideals garnered from science and religion", he views materialism (and thus metaphysics) as coming from science and/or religion and that is why he is attempting to remove them from the debate. The underlined portions highlight that fact.

wrong, oh portly one.
i was pointing out that if you don't teach someone either science nor religion, they would still not know god. both are taught. you don't need science to remove god.
he was never there from the beginning.
but you keep reading it from your simple minded view unfettered by any open thinking.
you can't argue it for it's points, so you find some longwinded crap to dismiss it.

There is also the history of hrmwrm's posts in other threads in response to the challenge of materialism that come into play and that you are likely unaware of.

and your history in posts he's becoming well aware of.

How many posts are both of you going to devote stating why you don't need to explain and discuss a point?

who 2?

 

[shagdrum]

i was pointing out that if you don't teach someone either science nor religion, they would still not know god. both are taught. you don't need science to remove god.

Then explain this line.

it's not materialist. as i said, take away all ideals garnered from science and religion.

This line cites taking away, "all ideals garnered from science and religion" as proof of a lack of materialism. The underlined part ties the two ideas together. If you were not looking to tie the ideas together and use that explicit premise of taking away "all ideals garnered from science and religion" as a means of removing materialism from the rationale for Atheism then that line makes absolutely no sense whatsoever; especially given the context of what you were responding to.

So, either you didn't know how to convey a simple point and make a coherent argument in post#111, or you are simply being dishonest and opportunistic in trying to switch your argument in post #140 to FIND's understanding of it as a means to smear and marginalize me.

Anyone who has followed this forum for a while is well aware of your pettiness, dishonesty and vehement hatred of me personally, as demonstrated in this thread as well as many others.

Your pettiness and hatred of me is specifically on display in post #66 of that thread, where you posted this image:

and in post #122 of that thread where you posted this image:

Given your past actions on this forum and what they say about your nature it seems much more likely that you are currently being dishonest and opportunistic in trying to change your argument because it is convenient to do so.

Your actions in previous posts betray you.

 

[hrmwrm]

Your pettiness and hatred of me is specifically on display

as is yours of me. next complaint.

 

[hrmwrm]

This line cites taking away, "all ideals garnered from science and religion" as proof of a lack of materialism. The underlined part ties the two ideas together. If you were not looking to tie the ideas together and use that explicit premise of taking away "all ideals garnered from science and religion" as a means of removing materialism from the rationale for Atheism then that line makes absolutely no sense whatsoever; especially given the context of what you were responding to.

apparently, it makes no sense to you only. next time ask for clarification if you're uncertain.

Given your past actions on this forum and what they say about your nature it seems much more likely that you are currently being dishonest and opportunistic in trying to change your argument because it is convenient to do so.

my arguement hasn't changed. but you'd rather argue than admit mistake.

 

[shagdrum]

apparently, it makes no sense to you only. next time ask for clarification if you're uncertain.

I did ask for clarification in the first line of in my last post. It is revealing that you are not forthcoming with that clarification.

my arguement hasn't changed. but you'd rather argue than admit mistake.

Actually, I have admitted mistakes and apologized for them numerous times on this forum (recent examples here and here). However, in this forum you have never demonstrated an ability to admit mistakes let alone apologize for them. In fact, you have demonstrated the exact opposite; a stubborn refusal to admit when you are wrong.

In fact, you have on countless occasions demonstrated a willingness to engage in lies, deception and smears to avoid admitting you are wrong.

 

[PetesSweets86]

Very well, then you should have no trouble proving that.



Baseless insults? Where? Why don't you go ahead and point them out. You seem to love making these accusations, but every time I have challenged them, you seem to be unable to point out your reasoning. You are nearly as obtuse as Foss when it comes to religious matters apparently. All you have done is misrepresent his posts on this matter and try and twist them to fit your own opinions.


Do you know what ad hominem argumentation is? I am addressing your post, you were addressing hrmwrm as a person instead of the points he made. You are attempting, by your post to argue that he is wrong by diminishing his credibility instead of arguing he is wrong by presenting counterpoints to his statements.



ORLY?

AMEN!!! lolz

 

[hrmwrm]

I did ask for clarification in the first line of in my last post. It is revealing that you are not forthcoming with that clarification.

sounds more like making a point than asking for clarification.

This line cites taking away, "all ideals garnered from science and religion" as proof of a lack of materialism.

well, actually it doesn't, but apparently that is what your basing your rebuttal on.
enough clarification?
you want to put things into my statement that just aren't there.
i'll lay it out again maybe you'll understand this time.

you are born. you have no knowledge of anything.
except to cry when in distress, and how to suckle.
you grow up. now, as you grow up, if you are not told of god, you would carry on your merry life without any knowledge that a god exists.
it is that simple.
there is nothing in day to day life to ever indicate a higher being, supernatural power, or anything. life just exists.

now argue this on the points made. not some circular reasoning that is the shag trade mark, nor adding things that aren't there.


and stop playing victim. it's unbecoming of you.

 

[shagdrum]

well, actually it doesn't, but apparently that is what your basing your rebuttal on.

Then what purpose does the line serve? You still haven't answered that. If my interpretation of what you are trying to say with that line is somehow flawed then you need to show what you meant by that line in a way that logically makes sense with the rest of your argument while excluding the what I am gleaning from that line.

it's not materialist. as i said, take away all ideals garnered from science and religion.

Simply restating the argument and removing that line from it looks a lot like a dodge. You put that line in there in an earlier post for a specific reason and you need to explain what you meant by that line. You haven't done that yet.

you grow up. now, as you grow up, if you are not told of god, you would carry on your merry life without any knowledge that a god exists.
it is that simple.
there is nothing in day to day life to ever indicate a higher being, supernatural power, or anything. life just exists.

Do you not understand what materialism is, how it fits in the rationale for Atheism and how that rationale hinges on that presumption?

Your argument is still rooted in a materialist assumption. Weather it is explicitly stated or not, weather you even consciously realize it or not, that assumption of no transcendent reality (materialism) and no transcendent God is necessary for your argument to make any logical sense whatsoever. Otherwise you could grow up without any preconception rooted in science or religion and reasonably come to a conclusion of a transcendent God.

My second and third points in post #120 points this out and KD00LS indirectly alludes to this problem in post #138.

If you have no science and religion, then you have to consider how religion came about. There are two possibilities and both fatally hurt your argument.

It is possible that a transcendent God revealed himself to society in some fashion providing a foundation for religion. However, your argument assumes that this is not a possibility, so it inherently and implicitly assumes materialism. I pointed out as much in post #114 and explained it in post #120.

It is also possible that materialism is real and there is no transcendent God, in which case the question must be asked "how did religion come about from this ignorant state of nature"? The typical Atheist explanation is that people looked for a simple explanation for certain phenomena and to provide a psychological and emotional comfort in the face of certain mortality. Hence the notion of a God and afterlife would naturally occur even under a materialist assumption, contrary to what your argument is claiming.

Either way, your argument is flawed. It still relies on that materialist premise and ignores the typical Atheist explanation for the development of religion.

Either God could reveal himself and directly provide a reason to think he exists, or man could look to explain certain mysterious and/or unpleasant phenomena, indirectly giving a reason to think God exists. Without an assumption of materialism, your argument does not logically exclude either of those possibilities yet it's conclusion is that neither of those things is possible.

I pointed all this out in post #120 and you still have not confronted these facts in the 27 posts sense then.

However, the more pressing matter is still that line from your earlier post:

it's not materialist. as i said, take away all ideals garnered from science and religion.

If I am somehow misrepresenting you and you were not presuming to exclude that materialist premise by excluding, "all ideals garnered from science and religion" then what is the purpose of this line? If you cannot give a reasonable explanation for this line, then your claim of me misrepresenting you looks to simply be dishonest and opportunistic.

 

[hrmwrm]

then your claim of me misrepresenting you looks to simply be dishonest and opportunistic.

you creating an arguement that isn't there makes you look dishonest.

KD00LS indirectly alludes to this problem in post #138.

he either does or he doesn't.

then you have to consider how religion came about.

i pointed that out in post 139.

It is possible that a transcendent God revealed himself to society in some fashion providing a foundation for religion. However, your argument assumes that this is not a possibility, so it inherently and implicitly assumes materialism.

yes, it is possible. but then why the many different designs. if it was 1 god, where did all the polytheistic gods come from? that is your flaw. you assume a 1 god view.
i suggest you do some study on ancient religions.
the egyptians were polytheistic, and for a short term monotheistic. then returned to polytheism.
there is a good arguement for this as the start of the monotheistic idea. what happened to the monotheistic worshippers is unknown in egyptian history.


your ideal also rejects buddhism, hinduism, north american native spiritual culture, mayan and aztec beliefs, ancient sumerian culture, etc and so on.
and then you'd have to explain why the others are myths and yours is fact.
accept. embrace it. study it.
there is no evidence for a single nor multiple supernatural entity.
and i'm not going to take your word for it either, ok.

and no, it's still not materialism. there is no basis for it if you lived in such a scenario.
it suits your arguement to put it in there, but it's not there.

It still relies on that materialist premise and ignores the typical Atheist explanation for the development of religion.

what is a typical athiest? many people have different reasons for not believing, just as numerous as the reasons FOR believing. are you going to hinge your arguement on "typical"?
shows how singular your thought is.

Either God could reveal himself and directly provide a reason to think he exists, or man could look to explain certain mysterious and/or unpleasant phenomena, indirectly giving a reason to think God exists.

your putting things as they have happened. this is what your stuck on.
it is just as easy that somebody never worried about what happened and just lived life from day to day til their end. never giving something a thought.
how can i explain. how about, you can't have up without down.
and you think i'm the one incapable of abstract thoughts.

 

[shagdrum]

you creating an arguement that isn't there makes you look dishonest.

No, I just understand your argument better then you do. Actually, you are proving something I have said; most atheists will not confront the materialism they take on faith.

You can't even admit to yourself that your view is rooted in materialism.

The fact is that without materialism, you can not conclude that there is no God. It is not logical in any way.

The best you can do is explicitly rejecting the premise while still implicitly assuming the premise.

yes, it is possible. but then why the many different designs. if it was 1 god, where did all the polytheistic gods come from? that is your flaw. you assume a 1 god view.

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. It doesn't matter if it is one God, multiple gods, a Judeo-Christian God, an Islamic god, or whatever. It is still possible that whatever diety(s) could reveal themselves to society in some fashion. The same is true about your point concerning Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. It is all incidental and irrelevant to my argument; a red herring.

We all know you will next try and say that my objections to your argument are also incidental but that is wrong. Weather you assume a Judeo-Christian God or, or multiple deity(s), the rationale behind my objection stays the same; the logic stays the same. However, if you remove the materialism presumption from your argument, the rationale behind your argument falls apart.

and no, it's still not materialism. there is no basis for it if you lived in such a scenario.

I already covered this in post #120. Materialism does not stem from science or religion but from philosophy.

It is pretty clear that you were simply opportunistic and dishonest in your claim that I am misrepresenting your argument because you are confirming everything I said about your argument in post #120. In fact, here you are confirming the 1st point I made in that thread:

[your argument] demonstrates an utter ignorance of the ideas it attempts to remove from the equation in the argument. This is mainly shown in two areas:

• The argument assumes away all preconceptions of science and religion, but that does not remove from the argument the notion of metaphysics and materialism, which is what the argument is ultimately attempting to overcome. This is because, while the ideas of metaphysics and materialism have profound implications for science and religion, they arise from PHILOSOPHY. In fact, the ideas can arguably be traced as far back as Aristotle and his Analogy of the Cave.
• The argument is less then consistent with it's handling of the idea of materialism. Which leads me to my next point...

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.

what is a typical athiest? many people have different reasons for not believing, just as numerous as the reasons FOR believing. are you going to hinge your arguement on "typical"?

This is nothing but a rather cheap dodge. It doesn't, in any way, challenge the rationale of my argument.

The fact that this is simply a petty dodge on your part is further reinforced by the fact that you articulated the same basic notion of how religion came about (and referred to it in this post):

it is an ancient way of explaining things that were not understood and not easily explained without the profound understanding we enjoy today.

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

And before you try and find a way to us the fact that, "there are so many different beliefs" to try and delegitimize the conflict between the two arguments, I simply point out that it is an irrelevant factor. It doesn't matter weather one unifying belief is accepted across a society or not. What matters is that a belief system can rise up without any actual God.

your putting things as they have happened. this is what your stuck on. it is just as easy that somebody never worried about what happened and just lived life from day to day til their end.

So, you are now going to further abstract your argument from reality? That only serves to isolate it.

Yes it is possible that someone could live their life without any conception of God, but that is not what your argument is.

the jumps you speak of are only from a religious sided arguement.
atheism is natural. god must be learned.(or brainwashed)

Your argument is that religion cannot occur naturally, but can only be taught. However, the fact that religion has developed shows that to be flawed. Yes some people could, in your original scenario, live their life without any conception of a god (or gods), but some people would develop a conception of a god (or gods) naturally as well (without it being "taught") and that latter fact flies in the face of your conclusion, showing the argument to be unsound.

The fact is the argument you made is weak and rooted in ignorance, as I pointed out in post #120. Instead of having the integrity to admit that, you latched on the FIND's misunderstanding of your argument as a means to smear me. However, the more you try to support your argument and claim I am misunderstanding it, the more you confirm everything I said in post #120 (when I was supposedly "misrepresenting" you).

In fact, you have yet to show that I, in any way misrepresented your argument. All you have shown is that you didn't originally fully understand the rationale behind your own argument and and don't have the integrity to admit that.

BTW, you still have yet to explain your line in post #111 which has been specifically pointed out three times. The fact that you continue to dodge that line instead of giving a rational explanation for it in your argument demonstrated that you are not being honest but are simply looking to make excuses to try and justify your sophomoric argument; further backing yourself into a rhetorical corner in the process.

it's not materialist. as i said, take away all ideals garnered from science and religion.

As usual, your actions in previous posts betray you.

I really see no reason to waste anymore time on your simplistic, irrational and ignorant argument and the cheap and desperate excuses you make to defend it. If you were to approach this honestly and objectively that would be one thing. But we all know that when it comes to the area of faith you are utterly incapable of honesty or objectivity. Your pattern in this thread proves that.

Stay classy.

 

[ONEBADMK8]

YouTube- George Carlin - Religion is bullshit.

 

[shagdrum]

Gotta love Carlin!

 

[ONEBADMK8]

Yes I do and he is totally right it is ALL mind control BULL$HIT and nothning more.

 

[PetesSweets86]

YouTube- George Carlin - Religion is bull:q:q:q:q.

lol i was gonna post that


YouTube- "The God Who Wasn't There" - Trailer

YouTube- The God Who Wasn't There

 

[shagdrum]

Yes I do and he is totally right it is ALL mind control BULL$HIT and nothning more.

Actually he tends to be rather simplistic and wrong on quite a bit.

But comic exaggeration is part of the game and he was extremely funny. On that we can agree.

The man could even make rape funny!!!!

Sorry about the crappy techno music. This is all I could find. Also, NSFW:

YouTube- George Carlin: Rape Can Be Funny SPARTA!!!!!

 

[ONEBADMK8]

Prove him wrong. Simple. God LOVES us its all God will crap, omfg for real man? Its God's will to kill us, disease us, melt us down into nothing right? He is a Great God a Loving God, LMAO yeah I see that. You believe in the Easter Bunny too? Santa? Same difference.

Get over the falsness and get on with REAL life. Religion is ALL ABOUT TOTAL CONTROL OF peoples will. Religion is the REAL ROOT of ALL evils.

 

[shagdrum]

Prove him wrong. Simple

Do you really want to make an issue of this?

Comedians are not good sources of honest, accurate information. They are only good sources of laughs.

If you want to try and prove the accuracy of his statements and your views, be my guest. But you have to first make a disprovable argument for any discussion to take place and that hasn't been done yet.

 

[fossten]

Prove him wrong. Simple. God LOVES us its all God will crap, omfg for real man? Its God's will to kill us, disease us, melt us down into nothing right? He is a Great God a Loving God, LMAO yeah I see that. You believe in the Easter Bunny too? Santa? Same difference.

Get over the falsness and get on with REAL life. Religion is ALL ABOUT TOTAL CONTROL OF peoples will. Religion is the REAL ROOT of ALL evils.

God is a just God and man is sinful. We brought all this crap on ourselves. Your view of God is that of a kid with a magnifying glass burning ants in the sun. Completely wrong. 'Prove him wrong' - okay, that's easy - man is full of evil. Look around you, around the world. Rape, murder, child abuse, theft, robbery, oppression, tyranny, unfaithfulness, neglect, greed, exploitation, deception, fraud, self-aggrandizement, vanity, SELFISHNESS. And you want to blame God for all the problems in the world? LOL give me a break. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Yeah, man doesn't cause any problems in the world. Get your head out of the sand.

God didn't abandon mankind - mankind abandoned God. He's been here all the time waiting for man to come back to Him.

By the way - you notice that you're still breathing and your heart is still pumping? Yeah, that's God doing that for you. You should be grateful - the entire time you've been blaspheming God, he still allows you to live while you're doing it. Talk about merciful - you wouldn't be as gracious. God's allowing you one more minute of life in the off chance that you might acknowledge him. Keep rolling the dice - eventually his patience will run out. But hey, it's all about you, right?

 

[PetesSweets86]

Prove him wrong. Simple. God LOVES us its all God will crap, omfg for real man? Its God's will to kill us, disease us, melt us down into nothing right? He is a Great God a Loving God, LMAO yeah I see that. You believe in the Easter Bunny too? Santa? Same difference.

Get over the falsness and get on with REAL life. Religion is ALL ABOUT TOTAL CONTROL OF peoples will. Religion is the REAL ROOT of ALL evils.

did you even watch my videos?

 

[PetesSweets86]

God is a just God and man is sinful. We brought all this crap on ourselves. Your view of God is that of a kid with a magnifying glass burning ants in the sun. Completely wrong. 'Prove him wrong' - okay, that's easy - man is full of evil. Look around you, around the world. Rape, murder, child abuse, theft, robbery, oppression, tyranny, unfaithfulness, neglect, greed, exploitation, deception, fraud, self-aggrandizement, vanity, SELFISHNESS. And you want to blame God for all the problems in the world? LOL give me a break. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Yeah, man doesn't cause any problems in the world. Get your head out of the sand.

God didn't abandon mankind - mankind abandoned God. He's been here all the time waiting for man to come back to Him.

By the way - you notice that you're still breathing and your heart is still pumping? Yeah, that's God. You should be grateful - the entire time you've been blaspheming God, he still allows you to live while you're doing it. Talk about merciful - you wouldn't be as gracious. God's allowing you one more minute of life in the off chance that you might acknowledge him. Keep rolling the dice - eventually his patience will run out. But hey, it's all about you, right?

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

 

[ONEBADMK8]

I believe in things I can see and touch, simple I am.

 

[PetesSweets86]

if I have faith in that my bank account has 1.75 million dollars....does that mean that it exists in my bank account?