Warning: Undefined array key "HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/includes/common.inc.php on line 360 Why Does God Allow Us to Suffer? - Minitokyo

Why Does God Allow Us to Suffer?

Are you hoping that our sufferings will end?

Yup! I'm hoping that these will end. :)
22 votes
I'm not sure, maybe... :\
9 votes
No!! There is no hope in this world!!! -_-
20 votes

Only members can vote.

page 4 of 8 « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next » 185 total items

tobiast88

tobiast88

No patience for fools.

You are being truly ridiculous ishimi. I have stated that I am an atheist, and that I am not "hungry in the spiritual sense". I am being realistic: there is absolutely no proof that god exists, or that a god exists, or rthat there is any higher power. YOU are the one who takes it on faith that your god is the right one. You're the one who's not being realistic.
And since I don't believe in Judgement day either, there is no reason for me to read your holy book which is a pack of legends, contradictory tales and general lies. I don't feel any particular need to abase myself to studying religion: you might want to open your mind, and finally understand that many people get along fine without religion. If you can't let go of your idiotic system of beliefs, at least acknowledge that others don't want to hear about it.

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis, Litterature Nobel Prize winner.
Join the groups!
http://mt-atheists.minitokyo.net/ ---> for science vs religion discussion
http://mt-gay-straight-club.minitokyo.net/ ---> for tolerant people

xxKurumi

xxKurumi

inexplicably green

well. I'm not one to argue about religion, all I can give
is this :

without suffering, there's be no compassion.

Because he likes it? ~_~

God doesn't make us suffer. We suffer 'cause we don't understand the lesson.

Mene, mene, tekel, parsin

Quote by leonardobarbaGod doesn't make us suffer. We suffer 'cause we don't understand the lesson.


*Tornado kills 100 million people*
God: Did you stupid kids understand the lesson this time?!
People: God?! Why'd you let them die?!
God: Wrong answer!
*Tsunami kills 200 million people*

Of course God wouldn't expect us to understand because He created us. Therefore he's just screwing with us according to your post.

ishimi

ishimi

Mouichido kimi ni Itai!

Quote by tobiast88You are being truly ridiculous ishimi. I have stated that I am an atheist, and that I am not "hungry in the spiritual sense". I am being realistic: there is absolutely no proof that god exists, or that a god exists, or rthat there is any higher power. YOU are the one who takes it on faith that your god is the right one. You're the one who's not being realistic.
And since I don't believe in Judgement day either, there is no reason for me to read your holy book which is a pack of legends, contradictory tales and general lies. I don't feel any particular need to abase myself to studying religion: you might want to open your mind, and finally understand that many people get along fine without religion. If you can't let go of your idiotic system of beliefs, at least acknowledge that others don't want to hear about it.


Fine, fine tobiasts if you dont want to be shared then why are you a fan of this thread?
You are always insisting that i am insisiting what i believe, my point is to share what i believe and sharing is not convincing!
Simple Advice: Find another thread or make your own if you want, leave this thread. ;)

"Do not become wise in your own eyes"

Honestly I'm not into religions mostly b/c I don't like hipocrites, people with a close mind and the scriptures. That doesn't mean I'm atheist as I do believe in hope and the possibility that there might be someone up there watching us. That said, this is what I belive...

Warning: no bible references (I don't read that book) just my thoughs...

Just as happiness, suffering is also part of life. Surely god could very well forgive all our mistakes and make it all better but doesn't that would be spoiling us? He can even rule over our minds to do only good deeds, but no...he gave us free will, and believe me...all those wars and disasters were not planned by him; all bad things (well...most of them) we brought upon ourselves and if not, at least one imbecile with power did. But then again...life can't be all happiness inside a little shell, b/c that's not life. We want to be alive and have free will, then we must accept the whole package which includes suffering from which we must learn and become stronger.

And...if you think about it, god created us as his own image so if we suffer, don't you think he does too? Suffering is even part of the big man himself so why bother blaming the poor guy who's already down due to all the pain we go through and all the disapointments? it is better to hold dear the moments we're happy and in the moments of pain, try to remember its also a part of life one must overcome and learn from.

tobiast88

tobiast88

No patience for fools.

Now the question is, ishimi, why does god allow me to suffer from evangelical fools such as yourself?

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis, Litterature Nobel Prize winner.
Join the groups!
http://mt-atheists.minitokyo.net/ ---> for science vs religion discussion
http://mt-gay-straight-club.minitokyo.net/ ---> for tolerant people

Quote by ishimiFine, fine tobiasts if you dont want to be shared then why are you a fan of this thread?
You are always insisting that i am insisiting what i believe, my point is to share what i believe and sharing is not convincing!
Simple Advice: Find another thread or make your own if you want, leave this thread. ;)


Ah, so you're telling him to leave because you don't feel like defending your beliefs? If you're going to "share your faith" you should be prepared to answer questions instead of telling people who don't agree with you to go away.

rituel

rituel

kLepToMAniaX Designs

Here's a short story i heard somewhere. Note that "religion" in the following story is meant to be synonymous with "good teachings":
A religious leader (priest and the sort) and a soap maker went for a walk together. The soap maker said, "What good is religion? Look at all the trouble and misery of the world! Still there, even after years-thousands of years- of teaching about goodness and truth and peace. Still there, after all the prayers and sermons and teachings. If religion is good and true, why should this be?"
The priest said nothing. They continued walking until he noticed a child playing in the gutter.
Then the priest said, "Look at that child. You say that soap makes people clean, but see the dirt on that youngster. Of what good is soap? with all the soap in the world, over all these years, the child is still filthy. I wonder how effective soap is, after all!"
The soap maker protested, "But, Padre, soap cannot do any good unless it is used!"
"Exactly!" replied the priest.
----------------

(Note that the use of 'padre' is rather common to refer to a priest, regardless of their actual rank (which i have no understanding of))

Quote by rituelHere's a short story i heard somewhere. Note that "religion" in the following story is meant to be synonymous with "good teachings":
A religious leader (priest and the sort) and a soap maker went for a walk together. The soap maker said, "What good is religion? Look at all the trouble and misery of the world! Still there, even after years-thousands of years- of teaching about goodness and truth and peace. Still there, after all the prayers and sermons and teachings. If religion is good and true, why should this be?"
The priest said nothing. They continued walking until he noticed a child playing in the gutter.
Then the priest said, "Look at that child. You say that soap makes people clean, but see the dirt on that youngster. Of what good is soap? with all the soap in the world, over all these years, the child is still filthy. I wonder how effective soap is, after all!"
The soap maker protested, "But, Padre, soap cannot do any good unless it is used!"
"Exactly!" replied the priest.
----------------

(Note that the use of 'padre' is rather common to refer to a priest, regardless of their actual rank (which i have no understanding of))


The funny thing about that is, religion leads to bigotry and other crap due to intolerance. You can't say the reason for bad things happening is because of a lack of religion, when most horrible things that have happened--and are happening--are because of religious people, who justify their cause with their religion. If they didn't have a religion what would the leaders of religious-based terrorist organizations do? Would they say, "Hey guys, do what I say! Ya!" I think, "God will reward you with eternal happiness if you die for His cause" is a bit more convincing.

Persocom01

Persocom01

Seeker of the Truth

Quote by alexjohnc3The funny thing about that is, religion leads to bigotry and other crap due to intolerance. You can't say the reason for bad things happening is because of a lack of religion, when most horrible things that have happened--and are happening--are because of religious people, who justify their cause with their religion. If they didn't have a religion what would the leaders of religious-based terrorist organizations do? Would they say, "Hey guys, do what I say! Ya!" I think, "God will reward you with eternal happiness if you die for His cause" is a bit more convincing.

Religion does lead to intolerance at times, but then again so does racism, cultural differences, economic disparity, language barriers and so on. Why, I see Taiwaniese politicians throwing punches at each other on TV! Was it because of religion? Not at all!

Horrible things would be happening in the world today even without religion, how sure are you that the world would be a better place without religion? Why, the standard of law in many countries today are based on Biblical standards, so would the world have be better without them? I do not think so.

Many good works have been done in the name of religion. Religion has inspired people like Mother Teresa to give their whole lives in service for others. If you search for disaster relief agencies today, you see among them the Adventist Community Services (ACS), The Catholic Charities USA Disaster Response, The Christian Reformed World Relief Committee (CRWRC), The Church of the Brethren Disaster Response, The Church World Service (CWS) Disaster Response... etc etc... (too many to name... you get the idea). Would these, and many, many smaller agencies, have been set up without the religious convictions of the people behind them to help the needy? Probably not, knowing how selfish humans are by nature.

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." - Matthew 5:43-45

You should know that the Crusades were fought in the name of Christianity, but does the Bible preach war on unbelievers? No it does not.

As for terrorism, I am not a Muslim and I do not support their religion. Say what you want, but I am against your sweeping statement that religion leads to bigotry and intolerance.

tobiast88

tobiast88

No patience for fools.

So, according to you, since people are inherently selfish, atheists are egotistical and amoral? Sorry, doesn't work. I know I do good things according to my principles, which don't include these idiocies:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her.
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Do these sound reasonable and tolerant to you? Also, many of the aid organisations you give also provide christian doctrine with their services. If you don't want the church, you don't get help. That's very fair, no?

And the veiled jab at islam just shows that religion does breed intolerance. I do not condone terrorism, but you condemn an entire religion based on the most violent wing. Do you judge your christian religion by those who scrawl on bathroom walls "Kill all the fags"? I doubt it, since you seem to feel so morally superior to other religions. Bigot.

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis, Litterature Nobel Prize winner.
Join the groups!
http://mt-atheists.minitokyo.net/ ---> for science vs religion discussion
http://mt-gay-straight-club.minitokyo.net/ ---> for tolerant people

Sazness

Sazness

Sazness

Prolly 'cause there is not God?

Persocom01

Persocom01

Seeker of the Truth

Quote by tobiast88So, according to you, since people are inherently selfish, atheists are egotistical and amoral? I know I do good things according to my principles, which don't include these idiocies:

"Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)" - Romans 2:15

While humans are inherently sinful, everyone has a conscience, and has "the law written in their hearts". So anyone can be moral and principled, however Christians normally have a better reason to be moral and principled. (although we, being humans, might not always be)

Quote by tobiast88Do these sound reasonable and tolerant to you? Also, many of the aid organisations you give also provide christian doctrine with their services. If you don't want the church, you don't get help. That's very fair, no?

If this is unfair to you then advertising is unfair. Christians do not force people to believe, just as advertisers do not force you to buy. Giving people millions of dollars of aid for nothing besides a chance to tell them of our hope is perfectly fair to me. Also note that since Christians believe that unbelievers go to hell, it is hypocritcal to save people physically without trying to save them spritually.

Quote by tobiast88And the veiled jab at islam just shows that religion does breed intolerance. I do not condone terrorism, but you condemn an entire religion based on the most violent wing. Do you judge your christian religion by those who scrawl on bathroom walls "Kill all the fags"? I doubt it, since you seem to feel so morally superior to other religions. Bigot.

Chistianity does assert that it is the true religion, as do most other religions. Almost every religion is mutually exclusive. You are reading too much into my words, I did not do a "veiled jab" at Islam. I merely won't defend it's doctrine.

Besides... pardon my opinion, but you sound like you are the one who is intolerant and a bigot.

As for those scripture passages you mentioned, many of those laws do not apply today. The Bible's laws tend to apply by chronological order. God gives us a certain law at a certain time because he knows the right time to apply them. The laws you mentioned were meant for the Israelites a few thousand years ago. It made alot of sense to them, although it doesn't to us. I'll try to find a better explanation, but this is my current understanding.

For an example of a law that does not apply today:

Circumcision:

"Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." - Romans 3:30-31

NaklsonofNakkl

NaklsonofNakkl

Unforgiven Monster

guess it all relies on how you view religion. I guess it could be more of God is just intersted in seeing how well we work things out ourselfs and if he really needs to do something he will. I highly doubt we are suffering enough for a higher being to step in and help us, besides, with how ignorant we humans are we wouldn't want the help anyway and just end up killing him like we did Jesus.

If you need me, just send me a msg, I'll reply ASAP ^_^

Quote by Persocom01Religion does lead to intolerance at times, but then again so does racism, cultural differences, economic disparity, language barriers and so on. Why, I see Taiwaniese politicians throwing punches at each other on TV! Was it because of religion? Not at all!


Woah! There are other harmful things besides Christianity! That's amazing!

Quote by Persocom01Horrible things would be happening in the world today even without religion


Likely, less horrible than now.

Quote by Persocom01how sure are you that the world would be a better place without religion?


Well my view is based on the harm that religions have caused and are causing. I'm pretty sure.

Quote by Persocom01Why, the standard of law in many countries today are based on Biblical standards, so would the world have be better without them? I do not think so.


Ya, then those countries would have laws that were not based on a specific belief system and everyone would have an equal say, depending on which view was more logical, not which one was more filled with religious dogma. Are you saying some countries would be lawless without religion? I'm pretty sure they'd still have laws (that are more fair) without their religion deciding for them.

Quote by Persocom01Many good works have been done in the name of religion.


In the name of religion, not because of religion.

Quote by Persocom01Religion has inspired people like Mother Teresa to give their whole lives in service for others. If you search for disaster relief agencies today, you see among them the Adventist Community Services (ACS), The Catholic Charities USA Disaster Response, The Christian Reformed World Relief Committee (CRWRC), The Church of the Brethren Disaster Response, The Church World Service (CWS) Disaster Response... etc etc... (too many to name... you get the idea).


Woah! Seriously?! There's religious organizations that help people?! That's amazing! And some religious people can do good things?! I never knew that!

Quote by Persocom01Would these, and many, many smaller agencies, have been set up without the religious convictions of the people behind them to help the needy?


No, but there many many more non-religious organizations than religious. And the non-religious ones do a lot more to help people than the religious ones, even though the religious organizations can easily get money from billions of people easily.

Quote by Persocom01Probably not, knowing how selfish humans are by nature.


I guess organizations like the Red Cross never existed then.

Quote by Persocom01"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." - Matthew 5:43-45


Good, the Bible contradicts itself by saying you should love your enemies, but at the same time kill them. Your point?

Quote by Persocom01You should know that the Crusades were fought in the name of Christianity, but does the Bible preach war on unbelievers? No it does not.


I'm not sure if it preaches having war with them, but it does preach killing them.

Quote by Persocom01As for terrorism, I am not a Muslim and I do not support their religion.


Okay, but it's still a religion last time I checked.

Quote by Persocom01Say what you want, but I am against your sweeping statement that religion leads to bigotry and intolerance.


I could never have figured you would ignore my arguments no matter what I would say myself. Thanks for telling me.

Next time try being open minded. I'm willing to think that religion does not lead to bigotry, but to my knowledge it does. I also think that in some cases religion does good. For the most part though, it's harmful to both the human intellect in that it causes intolerance and decreases one's ability to reason objectively.

Herbert Spencer coined the phrase "Survival of the fittest".

Where God is concerned, it is "Survival of the virtuous". All these sufferings we see are tests from God, all of them.

sukumei

sukumei

Running A Critiquing Service

tahts a very good summary. I have some means of holyness in my blood (wanted to becoem a priest but bah!). Well a religion is just guidance of a persons life. If a person wants to find out for themselves than fien wit me...

I would like to run a friendly critiquing service for Minitokyo artists. I will try to make my opinions professional and defiantly unbiased although i will speak ideas for the general public. Critiquing service MT thread

Persocom01

Persocom01

Seeker of the Truth

Quote by alexjohnc3I'm not sure if it preaches having war with them, but it does preach killing them.

That verse, along with those that Mr.tobiast88 quoted, were meant for the Israelites thousands of years ago. Because they had a covenant with God, they had laws to to help ensure that they remained a pure people. Many of them do not apply to us today.

IMO the commandments that Christians should keep in their minds are 2:

"Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." - Matthew 22:36-40

All the rest are based on these 2 commandments. Due to changing circumstances, many of the verses alexjohnc3 and Mr.tobiast88 do not apply today. That is my understanding.

Quote by alexjohnc3Next time try being open minded.

IMO you, of all people, shouldn't be making this statement.

"Woah! Seriously?! There's religious organizations that help people?! That's amazing! And some religious people can do good things?! I never knew that!" - alexjohnc3

"Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the Devil; for which reason I have, long since, as good as renounced it." - Thomas Carlyle

"It was only long after that I recognized sarcasm as the protest of people who are weak" - John Knowles, A Separate Peace, p22.

"Sarcasm is a symptom of a closed mind." - My opinion, in all humility.

tobiast88

tobiast88

No patience for fools.

So you actually acknowledge that some parts of the bible are irrelevant? Wow. What about Noah's Ark? Why is that truer than the rules I quoted? What about the gay problem? Is that now irrelevant? Don't think so, since the Anglican church is about to split over it. And how exactly did stoning people to death help the Israelites to remain a pure people, as you say?

About my example of religious organisations... did you read it, or are you just ignoring it? I wrote that these organisations often REFUSE to provide aid for those who will not attend their bible-classes that come free and totally unwanted. I repeat (but you'll probably ignore it again) do you find this fair?

You say you have a "better reason to be moral and principled". Why? Why are you better than me for example, poor bisexual atheist fool that I am? Why are your morals higher?

I accept the fact that that you won't defend Islam. However, since you believe others are wrong because they do not follow your religion's directions, you are a bigot. Taken from Wikipedia: "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own."

"Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false."

I do not qualify myself as a bigot because I accept that you may believe your doctrine, however stupid I may find it, and I respect your opinion, though I argue with it; and if given enough proof, I change my views. You cannot let go, in the face of overwhelming evidence, of your notion that the Earth is 6000 years old and that man lived with dinosaurs. I respect your opinion, but come on, wtf?

Also, sarcasm is a good way to prod people into questioning what they believe. Appealing to authority rarely works because it shows you can't think for yourself, and adding your own opinion to this just makes you seem superior - an effect actually amplified by "My opinion, in all humility." This is ridiculously pompous.

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis, Litterature Nobel Prize winner.
Join the groups!
http://mt-atheists.minitokyo.net/ ---> for science vs religion discussion
http://mt-gay-straight-club.minitokyo.net/ ---> for tolerant people

Persocom01

Persocom01

Seeker of the Truth

Quote by tobiast88So you actually acknowledge that some parts of the bible are irrelevant? Wow. What about Noah's Ark? Why is that truer than the rules I quoted? What about the gay problem? Is that now irrelevant? Don't think so, since the Anglican church is about to split over it. And how exactly did stoning people to death help the Israelites to remain a pure people, as you say?

It isn't irrelevant. It is still a guideline for things that God considers to be unholy. God did not change his standards, evil then is still evil in his sight. It is because of Jesus death on the cross for our sins that we are spared our own deaths.

You, and I as well, would find stoning harsh. However it wasn't so at the times when the laws were written. Remember that the Romans, whom you might consider the epitomy of civilisation hundreds of years later, used crucifixion as a form of excecution. The Chinese at one time chopped off the hands of people caught stealing, and even to day use the firing squad as a form of capital punishment. And why are there be laws in the first place? Isn't it to root out people who do wrong in the sight of society? I would guess that the same goes for the Israelites.

Quote by tobiast88About my example of religious organisations... did you read it, or are you just ignoring it? I wrote that these organisations often REFUSE to provide aid for those who will not attend their bible-classes that come free and totally unwanted. I repeat (but you'll probably ignore it again) do you find this fair?

Christians believe that unbelievers will go to hell when they die. Thus it is hypocritical to provide physical aid without trying to share the gospel. To refuse aid isn't fair, I would agree. However in the event of limited resources, I think it's fair to give higher priority to people who would at least hear the gospel, than to those who would not, all things being equal.

Quote by tobiast88You say you have a "better reason to be moral and principled". Why? Why are you better than me for example, poor bisexual atheist fool that I am? Why are your morals higher?

The reason is simple. In almost any religion including Christianity:

more good works -> death -> more heavenly rewards
less good works -> death -> less heavenly rewards

If you are an Atheist, however:

more good works -> death -> nothing
less good works -> death -> nothing either

I might be wrong, it might be possible to be an Atheist and believe in an afterlife, but as far as I know this is one of the reasons religious people are supposed to be more moral and principled. Don't misunderstand me, I said we have more reason/motivation to be moral. I didn't say we are definately more moral than you.

Quote by tobiast88"Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false."

I do not qualify myself as a bigot because I accept that you may believe your doctrine, however stupid I may find it, and I respect your opinion, though I argue with it; and if given enough proof, I change my views. You cannot let go, in the face of overwhelming evidence, of your notion that the Earth is 6000 years old and that man lived with dinosaurs. I respect your opinion, but come on, wtf?

I have my own reasons to believe it is true, however ridiculous it may seem to you. There is evidence that man did live with dinosaurs, and that the earth is 6000 years old. If you weren't indoctinated with the evolutionary history of life would you really think that it is impossible?

However you have your own views about this, and basing your beliefs on what evolutionists claim to be the history of life instead of the Bible, and less widely accepted scientific evidence isn't an uncommon thing to do.

I do respect your opinion, though I would argue with it. As for the overwhelming evidence, you might have been following the "Why can't science and god go together?" if you think so. However the reason I am silent is not because I can't defend my stand, but rather because I recognise that Mr.Plunkies is more interested in mocking me than giving thought to anything I have to say.

If you still think me a bigot, so be it. You are entitled to your own opinion, and I won't insist that I am right, because I very well may not be.

Quote by tobiast88Also, sarcasm is a good way to prod people into questioning what they believe. Appealing to authority rarely works because it shows you can't think for yourself, and adding your own opinion to this just makes you seem superior - an effect actually amplified by "My opinion, in all humility." This is ridiculously pompous.

I really did mean to state that in humility, and I'm sorry if you perceived otherwise. I couldn't think of a better way to put it across. My school teacher taught me that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, one which I would perfer not to use even today.

tobiast88

tobiast88

No patience for fools.

You haven't answered my question (again). Why are some parts of the bible not to be followed (i.e., stoning for arbitrary reasons), and why are others to be followed to the letter (i.e., Noah's Ark)? Which ones? And what about the question of gays in your religion? Give me a straight answer, instead of dancing around. I don't see why wearing two types of cloth was so "unholy" as to merit stoning. I agree that laws are provided to maintain societal order, although to "root out evil" as you say sounds extreme. And in the future, please refrain from random preaching comments such as this: "It is because of Jesus death on the cross for our sins that we are spared our own deaths." It is no more valid an argument than an unexplained appeal to authority, and I will disregard it as more christian nonsense. I argue with facts, not mythologies.

You have answered my question about the religious organisations, for which I thank you. However, you posted only a little higher up "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Kinda contradictory with the approach of "the christians go first for aid", no? Isn't a neighbour simply the person next to you, regardless of religion, skin color, sexual preference, etc? I believe that it is hypocritical to assert that christians will help anyone (thy neighbour), then turn around and only provide aid for those who submit to unwanted preaching.

Your example about afterlife is quite ironic. It asserts that christian people will help others in the purely selfish goal of a better afterlife, while atheists will help when motivated by their conscience, and since they expect no reward in a hypothetical future, their actions are completely unselfish. Atheists may not help as much in this case, but their actions must be considered much more moral than that of a christian racking up "good deeds" in order to get into heaven. Kant develops this argument (rather heavy reading, I might add) in "Criticism of Pure Reason", speaking of morality. My memory is rather vague on its finer points, such as the exact vocabulary (I just had a week of 4 hour tests, and I am letting summer wipe my brain) but Kant explains that morality can never be seen in the optic of reward, or else it is merely the research one's personal gain. In other words, selfishness. I recognize that christians are not conniving people who do good deeds just to get into heaven, but moral atheists who their good deeds never thinking how it might advance them in the afterlife must be considered in the light that they don't expect a reward. Is this not more moral than seeking to gain a better afterlife?

Your evidence that "man did live with dinosaurs, and that the earth is 6000 years old" is not "evidence" per se: evidence is what constitutes a theory and then and only then validates it. Your "evidence" seeks to prove a theory not elaborated upon said "evidence"; it is alternate and arguably false interpretations of scientific data. Where scientists have fact and build theories upon them, you take the conclusion and seek what fits the bill to validate it. And I was not endoctrinated by the evolutionary theory: in science class we are presented with data, and given a chance to analyse it on our own, the theory I have heard in science class seems coherent to me, while your notion that god protected the genome so that incest was not a problem in ancient times seems irrational to me and not based on evidence. Your theory starts with facts and a conclusion, and seeks to fill out the middle; scientific theories begin with facts, then elaborate a theory and seek to prove it.
I have been following the "Why can't science and god go together?" thread and I say that I must agree with Plunkies: some of your posts are truly ostrich-like, burying the head in the sand and repeating "Goddidit". Also, what annoys Plunkies is that you have a tendancy to ignore his posts, evidence, and questions.

If sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, why are Shakespeare's comedies so widely renouned? They are chock-full of irony and sarcasm, and everybody laughs. Sarcasm may not feel nice when directed at you, so all the more reason to send it back. It isn't harmful in most cases, and when it becomes malicious, a simple apology is in order. Words are not the swords one may fear them to be.

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis, Litterature Nobel Prize winner.
Join the groups!
http://mt-atheists.minitokyo.net/ ---> for science vs religion discussion
http://mt-gay-straight-club.minitokyo.net/ ---> for tolerant people

Quote by Persocom01

Quote by alexjohnc3I'm not sure if it preaches having war with them, but it does preach killing them.

That verse, along with those that Mr.tobiast88 quoted, were meant for the Israelites thousands of years ago. Because they had a covenant with God, they had laws to to help ensure that they remained a pure people. Many of them do not apply to us today.


So you get to pick and choose which ones you follow depending on how incredibly immoral and stupid they are? Are you saying that God wanted the Israelites to be intolerant terrorists, but then *magically* changed His mind without the Bible saying so? Any book that orders people to kill is sick, especially if it orders them to kill those who simply don't share the same views as them.


Quote by Persocom01IMO the commandments that Christians should keep in their minds are 2:

"Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." - Matthew 22:36-40


Still doesn't explain why the other stuff was in there if God expected people to follow the Bible's rules.

Quote by Persocom01All the rest are based on these 2 commandments. Due to changing circumstances, many of the verses alexjohnc3 and Mr.tobiast88 do not apply today. That is my understanding.


An example of such a circumstance is humans acquiring an ability to reason with more objectivity, thereby allowing us to think, "Oh, maybe we should look at evidence instead of just following the Bible without question like idiots." My own grandmother thought that dinosaurs were all part of a conspiracy by the government. I was little when she died, but my dad had told me this and I thought it was really funny. Now I think it's just pathetic. So many Christians try to justify their religion when, in the end, it supports intolerance, killing, hatred, etc. I think it's a bit more likely that the people who wrote the Bible at the time were less informed about the truths of our Universe and that will be the downfall of Christianity. If God inspired it, it wouldn't be contradictory to facts nor contradictory to itself. It might even allow us to predict things that are true beforehand. Now I'm starting to rant, but that's what I do when I'm really tired and I'm trying to discuss something with a religious person that cares nothing for the truth, but only for their religion.

Quote by Persocom01

Quote by alexjohnc3Next time try being open minded.

IMO you, of all people, shouldn't be making this statement.


You're really funny. You have yet to provide even a little bit of evidence for your religion, yet I'm the one whose close minded?

Quote by Persocom01
"Woah! Seriously?! There's religious organizations that help people?! That's amazing! And some religious people can do good things?! I never knew that!" - alexjohnc3

"Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the Devil; for which reason I have, long since, as good as renounced it." - Thomas Carlyle

"It was only long after that I recognized sarcasm as the protest of people who are weak" - John Knowles, A Separate Peace, p22.

"Sarcasm is a symptom of a closed mind." - My opinion, in all humility.


Now, because I was being sarcastic, my entire argument is wrong? I don't frankly give a shit about your quotes. You're really starting to get on my nerves now. If you're going to make an argument make one, but don't give me your stupid quotes and make them seem like they have any value. Try answering my post next time. You didn't respond to nearly any of my arguments, but instead looked for little phrases in my post that you thought you might be able to use against me. You respond to my use of sarcasm as making my arguments somehow wrong (yet only use random quotes to show this point, without actually even attempting to show this to be true). Did you forget about how you asserted that non-religious organizations for helping others couldn't have existed without religion since humans are selfish? Did you forget about how you asserted that religious organizations were really great and all, even though non-religious organizations do much more? Religious organizations have a lot more influence, yet they obviously don't try to help people as much as they could? If you concede to an argument at least reply with, "Sorry, my argument was flawed," instead of making yourself out to be an idiot who doesn't have the concentration to reply to someone's actual arguments.

Edit: I seem to get pissed off when I put the standard of "intelligence" on a religious person more often then not. Especially when I'm really tired (when I made this post I had a really long day. Sorry for swearing, but you really deserved it for ignoring so many of my arguments and thinking I wouldn't notice or something.

page 4 of 8 « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next » 185 total items

Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

Warning: Undefined array key "cookienotice" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/html2/footer.html on line 73
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.