This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[ding]

FWIW I've had two hole in ones.

 

[ding]

As for all of those dead people, that's God's problem. He made the rules. He let them die.

My comment was directed at your misguided belief that death and suffering serve no purpose. In your world there would be no suffering or death and I am wondering where YOU are going to put all of those people, plants and animals that don't die or decay?

Entropy is a real bitch!

 

[Dusty]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Sorry, but you are running in circles.

If God created existence, then he also created the flawed species that is man. Answer each of the questions provided by the paradox that is the Riddle of Epicurus.

Specifically, what assumptions did I make that aren't true?

And have already been addressed by MLK, Maimonides and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That you do not accept those answers makes further conversation illogical. Unless of course you need for me to repeat their answers.

I don't need your reading list anymore than you want mine.

From what I've seen of your tripping over absolutes and drawing conclusions based on conclusions, logic is not your strong point.

My 37 years as an engineer says otherwise.

I would imagine that a really good engineer requires a fair amount abstract intelligence... the ability to make sense of spatial relations and forces. However, I wasn't aware that courses in logic were part of the curriculum. Logic isn't levers and gears, but rather a mode of exploration that is grammar based.

My line of work has me in contact with a fair number of bright and well educated people. It often surprises me to how many of them have poor communication skills. This seems particularly true when it comes to organizing the written word.

Logic finds the answer when one does not have all the variables.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

Let me help. We play a round of golf, I sink a hole in one and your ball lands in the water. You're disappointed but still alive and anxious for another day, another challenge.

As for all of those dead people, that's God's problem. He made the rules. He let them die.

I see it a little different. Your ball lands in the water and you curse why God didn't make it so you would never have to suffer adversity. My ball lands in the water and I ask myself what it was I was supposed to learn. Down the road you hit a hole in one and feel nothing because you expect God to have made a world where all of your shots go in the hole. I make a hole in one and am elated because I know that not all shots go in the hole and it's because not all shots go in the hole that I feel so much joy over the ones that do.

There's a very large difference between simple adversity and the real ugly that exist in the world.

What possible purpose is there to a child born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age? Would you dismiss that with, "It's okay, there will be other children"? And what was the gain to the dead infant? What lesson and wisdom do you assign to the extermination of six million Jews and how do you justify it to the six million? When religious people lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve?

You treat the victims of all the suffering as if they are unthinking, unfeeling golf balls.

There is no way around the wisdom reflected by the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence, he created man, he created all, and hence, is responsible for the product. It's that fucking simple.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

As for all of those dead people, that's God's problem. He made the rules. He let them die.

My comment was directed at your misguided belief that death and suffering serve no purpose. In your world there would be no suffering or death and I am wondering where YOU are going to put all of those people, plants and animals that don't die or decay?

Entropy is a real bitch!

Is not entropy is a creation of God?

Why do you question God's plan and refer to his creation as a bitch?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

The answer to that riddle is that God's power is defined by accomplishing His objective, not yours. It's hella more impressive making good come from evil.

What a crock of shit. You are playing word games, again.

Why should it be impressive that an omnipotent be able derive good from evil that the omnipotent created? You make it sound as if we are here for your God's amusement.

We are here to glorify God and share in His existence. Some are appreciative of their opportunity and some aren't.

Don't you mean Her existence?

What about those who died before they could talk and walk. Where was their opportunity?

If it pleases you to say it that way.

Logically God contains both masculine and feminine nature. I only use He or His as a matter of literary convenience.

I accept the literary convenience.

I also note that you skipped the the child who never talked or walked.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Sorry, but you are running in circles.

If God created existence, then he also created the flawed species that is man. Answer each of the questions provided by the paradox that is the Riddle of Epicurus.

Specifically, what assumptions did I make that aren't true?

And have already been addressed by MLK, Maimonides and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That you do not accept those answers makes further conversation illogical. Unless of course you need for me to repeat their answers.

I don't need your reading list anymore than you want mine.

From what I've seen of your tripping over absolutes and drawing conclusions based on conclusions, logic is not your strong point.

My 37 years as an engineer says otherwise.

I would imagine that a really good engineer requires a fair amount abstract intelligence... the ability to make sense of spatial relations and forces. However, I wasn't aware that courses in logic were part of the curriculum. Logic isn't levers and gears, but rather a mode of exploration that is grammar based.

My line of work has me in contact with a fair number of bright and well educated people. It often surprises me to how many of them have poor communication skills. This seems particularly true when it comes to organizing the written word.

I've never met an engineer who wasn't logical. It's sort of a requirement for the job.

Writing is a talent but like almost all talents, it can be developed. Same for communication skills.

In other words, you didn't go to school to develop your engineering skills?

Surely, most talents can be taught... so what? You don't seem to appreciate that aptitudes vary. Neither do you appear to even understand what logic is.

College isn't job training. I see it more as developing core skills while learning underlying fundamental principles on specific subjects.

Of course aptitudes vary but they aren't set in stone. Skills and talents can be developed depending upon one's willingness to put in the work.

Saying I don't understand logic and showing how my logic is flawed are two different things.

Brain damage is set in stone.... at least until medical science overcomes it by which time it will be too late for some.

Contrary to conservative excuses for greed, not everyone can be taught to fish.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

The answer to that riddle is that God's power is defined by accomplishing His objective, not yours. It's hella more impressive making good come from evil.

What a crock of shit. You are playing word games, again.

Why should it be impressive that an omnipotent be able derive good from evil that the omnipotent created? You make it sound as if we are here for your God's amusement.

We are here to glorify God and share in His existence. Some are appreciative of their opportunity and some aren't.

So, the Father is not sufficiently amused by the evil he allowed into existence, he demands to be glorified for saving some of us.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I think you've really begun capturing the Love aspect now..

 

[ding]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

Let me help. We play a round of golf, I sink a hole in one and your ball lands in the water. You're disappointed but still alive and anxious for another day, another challenge.

As for all of those dead people, that's God's problem. He made the rules. He let them die.

I see it a little different. Your ball lands in the water and you curse why God didn't make it so you would never have to suffer adversity. My ball lands in the water and I ask myself what it was I was supposed to learn. Down the road you hit a hole in one and feel nothing because you expect God to have made a world where all of your shots go in the hole. I make a hole in one and am elated because I know that not all shots go in the hole and it's because not all shots go in the hole that I feel so much joy over the ones that do.

There's a very large difference between simple adversity and the real ugly that exist in the world.

What possible purpose is there to a child born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age? Would you dismiss that with, "It's okay, there will be other children"? And what was the gain to the dead infant? What lesson and wisdom do you assign to the extermination of six million Jews and how do you justify it to the six million? When religious people lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve?

You treat the victims of all the suffering as if they are unthinking, unfeeling golf balls.

There is no way around the wisdom reflected by the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence, he created man, he created all, and hence, is responsible for the product. It's that fucking simple.

No, I wouldn't dismiss it. Would you dismiss the overwhelmingly number of children who are born perfectly healthy?

Do you think the parents of children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age love them less? Or do they love them more because of it? Do you think that children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age don't have a positive affect upon the world? I think they do. I think the same would apply to the stillborn infant too.

What lesson and wisdom do I assign to the extermination of six million Jews? That's it's a bad idea to dehumanize human life and that when one does predictable consequences will ensue. How do I justify it to the six million? I don't. Life is not a value transaction. But some may argue that the establishment of Israel would not have occurred without it? How many lives did that end up saving in your cold hard value assessment? The question is will you only see the bad that comes from things or will you take a more balanced view.

When religious people (who were Democrats) lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve? That human life is precious and that we have inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures and that humans are not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. When religious people (who were Republicans) fought to end that injustice did you give them credit or learn anything from their efforts?

There is a away around the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence. Existence is good. Good is extant. Evil is not extant. It only exists as the absence of good.

 

[ding]

As for all of those dead people, that's God's problem. He made the rules. He let them die.

My comment was directed at your misguided belief that death and suffering serve no purpose. In your world there would be no suffering or death and I am wondering where YOU are going to put all of those people, plants and animals that don't die or decay?

Entropy is a real bitch!

Is not entropy is a creation of God?

Why do you question God's plan and refer to his creation as a bitch?

Yes, there can be no genesis without it.

It was a joke.

 

[ding]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

The answer to that riddle is that God's power is defined by accomplishing His objective, not yours. It's hella more impressive making good come from evil.

What a crock of shit. You are playing word games, again.

Why should it be impressive that an omnipotent be able derive good from evil that the omnipotent created? You make it sound as if we are here for your God's amusement.

We are here to glorify God and share in His existence. Some are appreciative of their opportunity and some aren't.

Don't you mean Her existence?

What about those who died before they could talk and walk. Where was their opportunity?

If it pleases you to say it that way.

Logically God contains both masculine and feminine nature. I only use He or His as a matter of literary convenience.

I accept the literary convenience.

I also note that you skipped the the child who never talked or walked.

Just as you skipped the overwhelming number of children who did.

 

[ding]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

The answer to that riddle is that God's power is defined by accomplishing His objective, not yours. It's hella more impressive making good come from evil.

What a crock of shit. You are playing word games, again.

Why should it be impressive that an omnipotent be able derive good from evil that the omnipotent created? You make it sound as if we are here for your God's amusement.

We are here to glorify God and share in His existence. Some are appreciative of their opportunity and some aren't.

So, the Father is not sufficiently amused by the evil he allowed into existence, he demands to be glorified for saving some of us.

You are demonstrating that you have an external locus of control looking to blame God for the ill will of men. At what point does man have any accountability for his actions? Man has a choice to do good or not do good. It seems you want a world where man is not free to choose. What would the purpose of such a world be exactly?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Still grasping at straws?

Correct, yes you are. It was especially cringey when you thought that screaming "scientists don't know how everything works!" was an actual rebuttal to "science deals with the how, not the why". Eek.

Yeah, that never happened. Perhaps cut down on the drugs?

Of course it did, as anyone can go back and read for themselves.

Science deals with the how, not the why. Get used to it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are demonstrating that you have an external locus of control looking to blame God for the ill will of men.

He is not doing that. He is demonstrating the incoherence and absurdity of your magical superstitions. Your penchant for misrepresenting people intentionally is childish.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Still grasping at straws?

Correct, yes you are. It was especially cringey when you thought that screaming "scientists don't know how everything works!" was an actual rebuttal to "science deals with the how, not the why". Eek.

Yeah, that never happened. Perhaps cut down on the drugs?

Of course it did, as anyone can go back and read for themselves.

Science deals with the how, not the why. Get used to it.

Of course they can read it for themselves. It never happened. Get used to it.

It was especially cringey when you thought that screaming "scientists don't know how everything works!"

Creepy is assigning straw motivations to your interlocutors while completely misrepresenting what occurred.

 

[ding]

You are demonstrating that you have an external locus of control looking to blame God for the ill will of men.

He is not doing that. He is demonstrating the incoherence and absurdity of your magical superstitions. Your penchant for misrepresenting people intentionally is childish.

Of course he is doing that. Transferring control to an external source is the definition of an external locus of control.

The absurdity is believing there can be no creator unless everything is perfect. That's called a logical fallacy argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is what atheist believe?

Being free from religion isn’t a ‘belief.’

Acknowledging the fact that there is neither proof nor evidence of a ‘god,’ that a given religious dogma is neither ‘factual’ nor ‘true’ is not ‘belief.’

Belief is the sole purview of theism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Still grasping at straws?

Correct, yes you are. It was especially cringey when you thought that screaming "scientists don't know how everything works!" was an actual rebuttal to "science deals with the how, not the why". Eek.

Yeah, that never happened. Perhaps cut down on the drugs?

Of course it did, as anyone can go back and read for themselves.

Science deals with the how, not the why. Get used to it.

Of course they can read it for themselves. It never happened. Get used to it.

It was especially cringey when you thought that screaming "scientists don't know how everything works!"

Creepy is assigning straw motivations to your interlocutors while completely misrepresenting what occurred.

Cry it all out. Done? Good.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Still grasping at straws?

Correct, yes you are. It was especially cringey when you thought that screaming "scientists don't know how everything works!" was an actual rebuttal to "science deals with the how, not the why". Eek.

Yeah, that never happened. Perhaps cut down on the drugs?

Of course it did, as anyone can go back and read for themselves.

Science deals with the how, not the why. Get used to it.

Of course they can read it for themselves. It never happened. Get used to it.

It was especially cringey when you thought that screaming "scientists don't know how everything works!"

Creepy is assigning straw motivations to your interlocutors while completely misrepresenting what occurred.

Cry it all out. Done? Good.

Seems you've done "screamed" your fill of nonsense at me today
Good.