Re: Religions
 

Maybe.

They could have not had a bug to eat, and died the same day. btw I edited my last post more.

Re: Religions
 

So the entire way this is rationalized is that god does help every one, but just a tiny bit - so small that it's not even recognizable that anything was done at all?


Hmmm.

I think I make a valid point that god not fixing these peoples plights either proves that god doesn't exist or is uncaring if he does.

And the major difference in our relative happiness is that if a billionare were to actually have my life, he wouldn't literally die from it. I would literally die if put into the situation of a lot of people in the world.

Re: Religions
 

Made me think of this.

Re: Religions
 

What is small to you is big to someone less fortunate. What is big to you is small to someone more fortunate. What you see as a tiny bit of help could be a miracle for someone else. Aka, waking up tomorrow morning.

First of all, we all die. No matter how rich or poor you are, you're going to die. Saying that you would litterally die in a different situation means nothing, you could litterally die in 5 minutes because you're human.

And if you're saying you'd die faster in certain less fortunate people's situation.. then If the billionare were to be living your life, yes he litterally would die faster then he normally would too (under "average" circumstances). He doesn't need health insurance and can just pay for anything instantly. And even if they have a fatal disease they can drag it out forever with medication i.e Magic Johnson and HIV.

Re: Religions
 

Ok, so to sum up. You attribute living as to being a gift from god. Nothing more then based on the examples the others gave? I mean, you actually are sort of correct about happiness. At least when it comes to wealth. There have been studies that winners of the lottery are back to their baseline happiness level a year later. But there are plenty of horribly painful diseases that make death a better option. Like what about babies who die shortly after death? Surely that wasn't a life worth living? Look up harlequin babies and tell me that was worth living through short as their lives are.

Re: Religions
 

I'm just going to chime in and play devil's advocate because I feel like a better explanation is needed.

Whether or not God is helpful doesn't really prove or disprove his existence. I think it's a fair point to piss off religious people, certainly. I think you're better off arguing Biblical plot holes...which is pretty easy to do. But even that doesn't disprove God, because the Bible could mean fuck all and God could still exist. I'm not saying that this argument is predicated on proving or disproving God. There are many Bible stories that touch on the relative degree of suffering or wealth.

There are many stories in the Bible with this message: that starving guy with nothing is going to Heaven, and the rich asshole is going to Hell.

Time on earth is really minimized. The end goal isn't your earthly possessions, it is what lies beyond this life. So you could be poor, blind, or in a third world. Your time on earth suffering will ultimately be met with God's glory. Whereas someone who could help the suffering but chooses not to will not experience God's glory.

That's somewhat independent of this current conversation. NO. God doesn't fix things. Jesus performed miracles because he was the Son of God and needed to prove this fact. Jesus was basically God's earthly avatar. It seems like a common misconception with Christianity interpreted is that God is going to heal the sick or fix problems.

God's not about that stuff. He never has been. That's one area where Judaism works better for me...I feel like they hold God to much more passive acts.

But here is the take home point, guys: There are NO expectations or obligations for God to make improvements on earth. That point is hammered so hard in the Bible. Earth is humanly, and the real good stuff happens when we leave this bodily earth. Once you leave earth, then you fully get to experience God's embrace.

Re: Religions
 

For you it wasn't worth it. For the baby, only the baby can judge that. For the parents/family, it could have served a purpose in their lives.

Re: Religions
 

In my mind it's a perfectly linear paragraph I'm about to write, but this joint will definitely have something else to say about that.


First off, I'm going to say that I too agree that you should never wish anyone not live. Any life is better than no life. My sister lost her first baby, and almost her fourth. It's tough to describe how a situation like that changes you, even if you're not directly affected by it. But in no world would I wish my unborn nephew never have existed in the first place. Not for any religious reason, but because he earned his right to exist as long as he did.




Anyways, to the thing I wanted to write about in the first place. I apologize for how probably painful this will be in that it will jump around 7 times.

I'm only going to address it as 'God", but I don't mean Western-White-Haired-Zeus. I just mean "A higher power". No ones specific God, no ones specific religion - I'm only referring to monotheism, however. There will be a lot of questions in here. Not really for each one to be answered, but to hopefully invoke thought - the most powerful human capability.

So God is typically everywhere, and loves everyone, right?
So why do some geographical areas not know of God? [Why do some geographical areas have different Gods than you. If there is one true God, why is there not one true God. Why are you right, and they're wrong. Someone is lying. Why is it them. Why are they as equally convinced it's you. What if nobody prays to the real God.] Why do we need to spread God's love, and the word of God? Why does God seemingly not love starving [people in third world countries]? I mean, he made them starve, overpopulated, poor - and it's our job to enter their country, spread the word of God and build infrastructure? Why was the word of God not already spread there by God himself, as he did for you? Why does God not help those people the way he has helped the non-starving parts of the world?

And say little Johnny is dying of polio, and you pray for little Johnny to get better. Why pray? God gave little Johnny polio. Did God give little Johnny polio just to see who'd pray for him to be better? Essentially judging people's worth based on how many people pray for them? Like some type of vote, where the losers are given horrible, horrible diseases, or die in painfully gruesome accidents?

One bone I do have to pick though is with ancient geological events that were seen as "Hand of God", which now we know are "A Volcano erupting in Thailand" or "An Earthquake in North America, sending a tsunami across the world" - and that still hasn't changed the view of anything. That boggles my boggled mind. God didn't strike down Sodom and Gomorra with fireballs - it was a highly coincidental incident with a bunch of meteors. The plague - at the time people thought it was an act of God because people were living so sinfully. But realistically it's just because there was legitimate filth everywhere that attracted rats that infected people which spread rapidly with devastating effects.

Somewhere along the line, the acts of God stopped, but the belief that they ever happened hasn't. Look at Hurricane Katrina. Thousands of years ago it would have been; "Gawwd-a has-a struck down the sinnahs of New Orleans. The gaaaamblahhs, porn-awg-ra-fyers, theeeeevin' low-livin sodomites" - but now with the understanding of the world it's just "Terrible Hurricane in New Orleans. Water levels rose above the dykes. The City is ruined."

Why did God not strike down the sinners of Haiti? Have any of the San Francisco earthquakes been acts of God? What about the Earth heating up and the polar caps melting; why isn't God doing that? Why wasn't the Spanish Influenza God's fault? Maybe the asteroid that's coming near Earth in around 2028 is an act of God. Why isn't the fact that our Sun will expand out towards Earth, envelop it, destroying the planet in 4 billion years - why isn't that an act of God?

Why is it no longer "Fuck, I wish God didn't make it rain today. I like it so much better when we appease him and he decides to make it sunny, and doesn't decide to bring horrible plagues upon us or ruin our crops" - but why do people still believe that was valid.

I'm not attempting to sound so insulting, that's not my intention. But I want to know how religious people justify that today's normal [understood] occurrences (tornadoes, asteroids, hurricanes, earthquakes) were yesterdays 'hand of god' - and still believe it. Like, why believe that thousands of years ago God struck down [place] with [natural disaster], when today we have proof that it was 'just a volcano', or 'just an earthquake'. Why believe that back then an earthquake was an act of God, when today it's plate tectonics.

*Exhale*

Re: Religions
 

Babies cannot make judgements.

But they can feel pain.

How would this conversation go down if we were talking about third trimester abortions, or drowning a baby in a bucket after birth like they do in China?

Re: Religions
 

Thank you for the link. My only food for thought response would be to factor in the amount of civilian casualties and wars caused by Republicans vs. Democrats. Look at the Middle East...for example. On the other hand, Obama clearly has a war agenda, so maybe it goes both ways. But charity is more than just giving people money. When you add civilian causalities and war into the equation, who really comes out on top? :ohreilly:

Early Christianity was spread via war. Look at the Spanish Inquisition or what we did to the Native Americans. Christianity, actually....Catholicism....has a lengthy history in Europe. The Martin Luther revolution was the result of BAD RELIGION. Catholics are responsible for many wars and deaths throughout European history. Not to mention how often religion was abused by kings and other nobles. Remember, to date, the earth was flat, the earth was in the center of the universe, and God created the universe. Since then we've discovered the earth is not flat, we aren't in the center, and we came from the Big Bang. We haven't figured out what happened pre-Big Bang. So you can go two directions: God created us, or science still needs to fill in the gap.

None of that proves or disproves the existence of God, but when you consider the amount of causalities and war that are the result of religion, even religion's charitable contributions seem to weigh fairly against the destruction caused by religion.

Again, none of this really proves or disproves the existence of God. But, I have to ask:

I wonder if the big personalities in the science community wouldn't be so cynical or anti-religion if historically religion wasn't so anti-science. So much so in fact that many historical science figures died at the hands of religious men. I know in Physics class we were reminded what happened to people like Copernicus, or the Library of Alexandria. Need I remind you that Copernicus has done way more to advance human civilization than the Catholic church.

I think the science community is far more anti-religion than anti-God. And they've earned their jaded patch. I mean seriously, if you're a scientist you have every right to own a "fuck religion" mentality.

But it's a complicated gray area issue. Here is why: You have organizations like the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army is fucking awesome, they help a TON OF PEOPLE out. But they are also anit-gay. For me, I have to refer people to Salvation Army for free resources all the time. I'm partially conflicted because I disagree with the anti-gay stance, so I'm in serious moral contention because I'd rather help people. I see the positives, like the Catholic church assisting in Africa. And then I see Pope Douchefuck the III telling the people not to wrap their shit. Seriously, Pope? AIDS!!!???!!

It's all the holes in the mythology that keep me away from religion....I'm open to spirituality and find that my own journey and questions are a rewarding experience. Organized religion has the faults of any major institution, only MORE SO because it is founded and based on antiquated and retarded ideas.

The notion of God or Spirituality should remain separate from both science and organized religion. I'm down with some higher power or some connected conscious. I'm open to that notion. I can't get aboard religion, I've seen way too much hurt caused by religious institutions. I'd like to think if there is a God, he set the universe in motion and grabbed a bucket of Popcorn. And some lube. Because he is watching you undress.

Re: Religions
 

Yes they can.

Re: Religions
 

I'm going to need you to elaborate....

Re: Religions
 

I believe 5 out of 7 babies advise you use Crest brand toothpaste.

Re: Religions
 

They cannot make moral judgements because they haven't been exposed to society, but they can make judgements for themselves. Judgement: That's hot, that's cold.. That feels good, that's uncomfortable.. etc etc.

Re: Religions
 

Those aren't judgements...not at that age. If you are interested in learning about early stages of development, there is no better place to start than....





GENE PARMESAN?!?!!???!!!

No...I'm just kidding. You want to read Jean Piaget.

Judgements are based on abstract thought. Until a child can understand the world and form abstract thoughts - the Concrete stage - they rely largely on reflexes and motor skills, and then eventually symbols. A baby may feel "cold" or "hot" or "pain" or "no pain," but they can abstractly conceptualize these things.

Piaget's Cognitive stages: http://www2.honolulu.hawaii.edu/facd...tip/piaget.htm

Through evolution and early behavior cues, a child reacts negatively to something hot. Reflex...not abstract thought or judgement. Hell, you don't react to something that is hot because of judgement. The hot/cold reflex is one that sticks with you til you're old and dead.