Conquer Club

Suppose you know that if your friend enters the convenience store, in about 10 minutes, he'll be murdered by a robber.
All you have to do is say, "Hey, let's go to the other convenience store."

You then saved your friend's life. Pat yourself on the back.



Since God is allegedly omniscient, then he has the ability to prevent many unnecessary deaths. Yet, he doesn't intervene. He simply lets many people unnecessarily die.

Is this negligent?
What kind of dickhead lets someone die like that?
"Sorry, dude, but you know, I can't directly intervene cuz free will--except for all those times when I intervened about 2000 years ago."


Doesn't make any sense at all.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Suppose you know that if your friend enters the convenience store, in about 10 minutes, he'll be murdered by a robber.
All you have to do is say, "Hey, let's go to the other convenience store."

You then saved your friend's life. Pat yourself on the back.



Since God is allegedly omniscient, then he has the ability to prevent many unnecessary deaths. Yet, he doesn't intervene. He simply lets many people unnecessarily die.

Is this negligent?
What kind of dickhead lets someone die like that?
"Sorry, dude, but you know, I can't directly intervene cuz free will--except for all those times when I intervened about 2000 years ago."


Doesn't make any sense at all.

Why are you presupposing in your argument that your friend's death is a bad thing in the grand scheme of things? It may not make sense from your perspective but I don't think anyone would argue that you are all knowing.

I'll just respond with the same over simplification technique as the OP. I'm also going to get in touch with my feminine side here for my write in vote.

It's not you God, it's me.

Good, like foreskin.

Funkyterrance wrote:Why are you presupposing in your argument that your friend's death is a bad thing in the grand scheme of things? It may not make sense from your perspective but I don't think anyone would argue that you are all knowing.

I was going to preemptively summarize all the religious responses you will get to this intractable problem by saying "god works in mysterious, dickish ways". But FT already beat me too it.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:Why are you presupposing in your argument that your friend's death is a bad thing in the grand scheme of things? It may not make sense from your perspective but I don't think anyone would argue that you are all knowing.

I was going to preemptively summarize all the religious responses you will get to this intractable problem by saying "god works in mysterious, dickish ways". But FT already beat me too it.

Suuure you were.
I would never cite such an overused cliche, especially since it's again taking the point of view of the human(a being which actually understands very little about the universe). Also, what makes my response religious, pray tell? You could at least try to hold your bias in just a teensy bit for the sake of being accurate.

Funkyterrance wrote:Suuure you were.
I would never cite such an overused cliche, especially since it's again taking the point of view of the human(a being which actually understands very little about the universe). Also, what makes my response religious, pray tell? You could at least try to hold your bias in just a teensy bit for the sake of being accurate.

Yes, I was (it's kinda my catchprhrase) See: [1] and [2]

Your response is religious because it defends an omnipotent, omniscient being who lets this happen:


Is god unable to stop that kid from dying WITHOUT any further negative consequences ? Then he's not omnipotent.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Suppose you know that if your friend enters the convenience store, in about 10 minutes, he'll be murdered by a robber.
All you have to do is say, "Hey, let's go to the other convenience store."

You then saved your friend's life. Pat yourself on the back.



Since God is allegedly omniscient, then he has the ability to prevent many unnecessary deaths. Yet, he doesn't intervene. He simply lets many people unnecessarily die.

Is this negligent?
What kind of dickhead lets someone die like that?
"Sorry, dude, but you know, I can't directly intervene cuz free will--except for all those times when I intervened about 2000 years ago."


Doesn't make any sense at all.

One could argue that life without death is no life at all, and that death exists, so we can truly enjoy life. I am not one of them though.
However, the more people that die, mean the more people that can live on some level, so its possible the goal is to create as many souls as possible?

My personal philosophy, which I think could be the only true plan of an actual GOOD God, ie a god of pure good, would be that earth was absolutely a test, and that the afterlife would reward you in exact proportion to every single decision you ever made, and make up for all inequity whatsoever, on an infinite level. Only in this way would there be any equity in any way, and only then could one consider God to be GOOD.

If there is inequity, there is evil, defacto.

There are other possibilities though, and one would be that God is not GOOD, and is just God. Great maybe, and all powerful, but not infinitely GOOD.

Also, given the ability to do anything, the afterlife might be so good, that all inequity became irrelevant, but again, there would have to be some accounting for massive inequity and suffering.

What is unlikely, is that anyone has any clue whatsoever about the nature of God, since the number of theories is so broad in range, its simply a mathematical improbability. Maybe everyone is close, maybe everyone is so far off that God is laughing, and if we know anything about God, its that he absolutely has a sense of humor.

The other possibility of course is that there isnt really any creator whatsoever, and people made up stories as people do, to explain the unknown. Then they may have set up entire religions based on these, and used them to wield power and influence.

In any case, given infinite ability to know and do anything, one can construct any version of God and have it fit, given you are crazy enough really.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:Suuure you were.
I would never cite such an overused cliche, especially since it's again taking the point of view of the human(a being which actually understands very little about the universe). Also, what makes my response religious, pray tell? You could at least try to hold your bias in just a teensy bit for the sake of being accurate.

Yes, I was (it's kinda my catchprhrase) See: [1] and [2]

Your response is religious because it defends an omnipotent, omniscient being who lets this happen:


Is god unable to stop that kid from dying WITHOUT any further negative consequences ? Then he's not omnipotent.

That is not necessarily true. If, in an afterlife, all said suffering and pain were somehow rewarded on and infinite level, and similarly all bad deeds were atoned, one could say that all is fair...theoretically.

Mostly I think most religious people dont give a flying f*ck about people starving and just use religion as a delusion to get through the day, and block out all the injustice in the world, so they can justify their ignoring of the suffering of millions of people, all while pretending to be pious and righteous spreading the word of some God, whose message, they have clearly missed, or ignored.

Weeee. Now we're getting some good discussion going.

Without evil, good doesn't exist. Balance.

That's the basis for one of my favorite religions. Taoism. I believe in our current state of being on this planet, everything works together to at least give the illusion of balance. Hot - cold, Water - wind, Black - white, Good - evil...

I think it also causes us to expect that things in the long run have to balance or they don't make sense to the way we view everything. There are way too many rational (in some cases simple) things for any single person to know well. Then add in complex things that have not been discovered or properly understood yet.

I basically by comparison of what exists know very very little.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Your response is religious because it defends an omnipotent, omniscient being who lets this happen:

I don't remember defending anything, that's pure projection on your part. Your seething bitterness regarding this subject seems to affect your ability to enter into it in a reasonable way.

AAFitz wrote:Mostly I think most religious people dont give a flying f*ck about people starving and just use religion as a delusion to get through the day, and block out all the injustice in the world, so they can justify their ignoring of the suffering of millions of people, all while pretending to be pious and righteous spreading the word of some God, whose message, they have clearly missed, or ignored.

Most Christians (and I have no stats, just by observation of any I've interacted with on some level to the point of noticing.) either have on occasion or regularly give to one or more charitable organisations like the ones that use those type of images.

AAFitz wrote:Mostly I think most religious people dont give a flying f*ck about people starving and just use religion as a delusion to get through the day, and block out all the injustice in the world, so they can justify their ignoring of the suffering of millions of people, all while pretending to be pious and righteous spreading the word of some God, whose message, they have clearly missed, or ignored.

<steps outta dinosaur suit>

Are they really worthy of blame? Who are we to judge that their subjective valuation of profit and opportunity cost are incorrect?

It can be frustrating to hear uninformed voters (more or less) blindly clamoring for state intervention while demanding the opposition to resolve imagined and/or expected intricate problems about proposals in favor of the market. How can I compile centuries of knowledge and confine them into a few posts? How do I convince people to at least level the same standard of criticism against the government?

Many of us develop into these various belief systems or ideologies while hardly engaging in some serious introspection. Introspection, critical thinking, and searching for information is not costless, so why not seek the lowest priced substitute (e.g. God did it; need more regulation; etc.)?

2dimes wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Mostly I think most religious people dont give a flying f*ck about people starving and just use religion as a delusion to get through the day, and block out all the injustice in the world, so they can justify their ignoring of the suffering of millions of people, all while pretending to be pious and righteous spreading the word of some God, whose message, they have clearly missed, or ignored.

Most Christians (and I have no stats, just by observation of any I've interacted with on some level to the point of noticing.) either have on occasion or regularly give to one or more charitable organisations like the ones that use those type of images.

And that's exactly why I said you completely missed the entire point of Christs teachings...because you think that is enough, or could even be mentioned without embarrassment.

And just so you know, so do most atheists.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Mostly I think most religious people dont give a flying f*ck about people starving and just use religion as a delusion to get through the day, and block out all the injustice in the world, so they can justify their ignoring of the suffering of millions of people, all while pretending to be pious and righteous spreading the word of some God, whose message, they have clearly missed, or ignored.

<steps outta dinosaur suit>

Are they really worthy of blame? Who are we to judge that their subjective valuation of profit and opportunity cost are incorrect?

It can be frustrating to hear uninformed voters (more or less) blindly clamoring for state intervention while demanding the opposition to resolve imagined and/or expected intricate problems about proposals in favor of the market. How can I compile centuries of knowledge and confine them into a few posts? How do I convince people to at least level the same standard of criticism against the government?

Many of us develop into these various belief systems or ideologies while hardly engaging in some serious introspection. Introspection, critical thinking, and searching for information is not costless, so why not seek the lowest priced substitute (e.g. God did it; need more regulation; etc.)?

Im not blaming them. Im hardly suggesting I am any better. However, if one simply studies the Bible, and reads what it suggests we do in the face of human suffering and evil, there isnt really any way to interpret other than, Do not stand for this.

People instead assume its Gods will, and go on with their lives, when its very clear, that if the Bible was written by God, it was his will that such suffering was meant to be stopped. Theoretically, he sent his son to die so we would get the point even better, and its really straightforward, so on some level, except those doing everything they can, the blame absolutely rests with them, myself included.

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Mostly I think most religious people dont give a flying f*ck about people starving and just use religion as a delusion to get through the day, and block out all the injustice in the world, so they can justify their ignoring of the suffering of millions of people, all while pretending to be pious and righteous spreading the word of some God, whose message, they have clearly missed, or ignored.

<steps outta dinosaur suit>

Are they really worthy of blame? Who are we to judge that their subjective valuation of profit and opportunity cost are incorrect?

It can be frustrating to hear uninformed voters (more or less) blindly clamoring for state intervention while demanding the opposition to resolve imagined and/or expected intricate problems about proposals in favor of the market. How can I compile centuries of knowledge and confine them into a few posts? How do I convince people to at least level the same standard of criticism against the government?

Many of us develop into these various belief systems or ideologies while hardly engaging in some serious introspection. Introspection, critical thinking, and searching for information is not costless, so why not seek the lowest priced substitute (e.g. God did it; need more regulation; etc.)?

Im not blaming them. Im hardly suggesting I am any better. However, if one simply studies the Bible, and reads what it suggests we do in the face of human suffering and evil, there isnt really any way to interpret other than, Do not stand for this.

People instead assume its Gods will, and go on with their lives, when its very clear, that if the Bible was written by God, it was his will that such suffering was meant to be stopped. Theoretically, he sent his son to die so we would get the point even better, and its really straightforward, so on some level, except those doing everything they can, the blame absolutely rests with them, myself included.

Therefore, we must insist on free markets for the world. Thanks, AAFitz!

RE: underlined, really? Because St. Augustine (or Aquinas) had a different view. IIRC, slavery exists because the slaves committed some sin previously, so now they're paying for it. People living under brutal dictatorships also get what they deserve because sin.

The point is that the Bible has remained--more or less--unchanged, yet human interpretations of it have changed (to my knowledge in the modern era no one makes such arguments like Aquinas and Aug. have). So, it's not a simple matter of reading the Bible because the interpreted directives will differ. Our awareness of others and our desire to help them seems to have increased over the centuries, but the Bible plays a proximate role in this. Something else explains why humans shifted from Aquinas and Aug's way of thinking. Perhaps the Bible is not as relevant as we think it is.

EDIT 2: I wrote this to respond to.

And that's exactly why I said you completely missed the entire point of Christs teachings...because you think that is enough

Wat?

I think something is enough?

I suspect you're accusation is that I think giving money to an organisation to trick myself that it's feeding hungery people while not checking up on them. Is better than interacting with humans or poor people. Which is a fair criticism.
EDIT: I see you've edited your statement, I'm still unsure and basically asking while giving a bit of a (possibly still inadiquate) explaination of basic direction I'm trying to go with partial defense of Christians.
Whom I actually somewhat am also bothered when they fail when they are 1- supposed to know better and 2- act or claim to be better behaved.

I maintain that the reason most of the time is they are making mistakes as opposed to lying and maliciously taking advantage of others.
Though both of those things happen sometimes. /EDIT:

I suppose I've given money to organisations. I have indeed trusted them to use it for whatever purpose they claimed they would. I know too much to think that is certain. I'm farmiliar with Jim Baker. Some I have checked into but not to the point of knowing for sure, they have reasonable claims and I've not heard otherwise pertaining to any I've donated to.

Your accusation that doing that to be pious in a way is "dont give a flying.." yet. My point is the reason they gave away the money is because they did care.

I'm suggesting, it's not exactly easy to take the time off work and go to Africa and be present to physically help poor people but I only personallyknow "Christians" that have done it.

I have seen celeberties do the same sort of thing. Brad Pitt's wife comes to mind.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:Suuure you were.
I would never cite such an overused cliche, especially since it's again taking the point of view of the human(a being which actually understands very little about the universe). Also, what makes my response religious, pray tell? You could at least try to hold your bias in just a teensy bit for the sake of being accurate.

Yes, I was (it's kinda my catchprhrase) See: [1] and [2]

Your response is religious because it defends an omnipotent, omniscient being who lets this happen:


Is god unable to stop that kid from dying WITHOUT any further negative consequences ? Then he's not omnipotent.

What are you doing to make sure that the above does not happen? Do you hold God to a higher standard or something? Jerk.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Mostly I think most religious people dont give a flying f*ck about people starving and just use religion as a delusion to get through the day, and block out all the injustice in the world, so they can justify their ignoring of the suffering of millions of people, all while pretending to be pious and righteous spreading the word of some God, whose message, they have clearly missed, or ignored.

<steps outta dinosaur suit>

Are they really worthy of blame? Who are we to judge that their subjective valuation of profit and opportunity cost are incorrect?

It can be frustrating to hear uninformed voters (more or less) blindly clamoring for state intervention while demanding the opposition to resolve imagined and/or expected intricate problems about proposals in favor of the market. How can I compile centuries of knowledge and confine them into a few posts? How do I convince people to at least level the same standard of criticism against the government?

Many of us develop into these various belief systems or ideologies while hardly engaging in some serious introspection. Introspection, critical thinking, and searching for information is not costless, so why not seek the lowest priced substitute (e.g. God did it; need more regulation; etc.)?

Im not blaming them. Im hardly suggesting I am any better. However, if one simply studies the Bible, and reads what it suggests we do in the face of human suffering and evil, there isnt really any way to interpret other than, Do not stand for this.

People instead assume its Gods will, and go on with their lives, when its very clear, that if the Bible was written by God, it was his will that such suffering was meant to be stopped. Theoretically, he sent his son to die so we would get the point even better, and its really straightforward, so on some level, except those doing everything they can, the blame absolutely rests with them, myself included.

Therefore, we must insist on free markets for the world. Thanks, AAFitz!

RE: underlined, really? Because St. Augustine (or Aquinas) had a different view. IIRC, slavery exists because the slaves committed some sin previously, so now they're paying for it. People living under brutal dictatorships also get what they deserve because sin.

The point is that the Bible has remained--more or less--unchanged, yet human interpretations of it have changed (to my knowledge in the modern era no one makes such arguments like Aquinas and Aug. have). So, it's not a simple matter of reading the Bible because the interpreted directives will differ. Our awareness of others and our desire to help them seems to have increased over the centuries, but the Bible plays a proximate role in this. Something else explains why humans shifted from Aquinas and Aug's way of thinking. Perhaps the Bible is not as relevant as we think it is.

Well, as you say here, people incorrectly interpret writing as you have done with your faulty free market assumption.

As far as my statement being far too generalized, it is, but it is also aimed for the most part at those particular people, and the ones I know like them.

There are many theories about what the remedies could be, and free markets could be one of them, but given what Ive seen markets do in the past, I wouldn't trust them to create anything but a disaster. I believe you have simply misinterpreted history, to come up with your faulty assumption.

thegreekdog wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:Suuure you were.
I would never cite such an overused cliche, especially since it's again taking the point of view of the human(a being which actually understands very little about the universe). Also, what makes my response religious, pray tell? You could at least try to hold your bias in just a teensy bit for the sake of being accurate.

Yes, I was (it's kinda my catchprhrase) See: [1] and [2]

Your response is religious because it defends an omnipotent, omniscient being who lets this happen:


Is god unable to stop that kid from dying WITHOUT any further negative consequences ? Then he's not omnipotent.

What are you doing to make sure that the above does not happen? Do you hold God to a higher standard or something? Jerk.

Are you saying you don't hold God to a higher standard to a person?

AAFitz wrote:Are you saying you don't hold God to a higher standard to a person?

Do you care what my answer is?

thegreekdog wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Are you saying you don't hold God to a higher standard to a person?

Do you care what my answer is?

Did you care what his was?

AAFitz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Are you saying you don't hold God to a higher standard to a person?

Do you care what my answer is?

Did you care what his was?

I was making a joke, so no, I don't care what his answer was.

But do you care what my answer is? Is there anything I can say that will be of any value to you? I suspect the answer is no.

2dimes wrote:Weeee. Now we're getting some good discussion going.

Without evil, good doesn't exist. Balance.

That's the basis for one of my favorite religions. Taoism. I believe in our current state of being on this planet, everything works together to at least give the illusion of balance. Hot - cold, Water - wind, Black - white, Good - evil...

I think it also causes us to expect that things in the long run have to balance or they don't make sense to the way we view everything. There are way too many rational (in some cases simple) things for any single person to know well. Then add in complex things that have not been discovered or properly understood yet.

I basically by comparison of what exists know very very little.

This makes it sound like god's some sort of self-conscious guy who wants to prove to a girl ("Christians") that he's all awesome by punching some ugly cunt in the kidneys (non-Christians) and being like "see?!?! Aren't I awesome?! I won't punch you in the kidneys!"

Why does there have to be any good to begin with? Why the f*ck do humans have to exist in the first place? God is such a insecure motherfucker.

For me, the best argument against god is "so what about the people who live in some remote society who haven't even heard of the concept of god?" That's pretty much like an express flight to Hell.

thegreekdog wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Are you saying you don't hold God to a higher standard to a person?

Do you care what my answer is?

Did you care what his was?

I was making a joke, so no, I don't care what his answer was.

But do you care what my answer is? Is there anything I can say that will be of any value to you? I suspect the answer is no.

I was making the same joke you were, while more of a parody of yours, and honestly, obviously so, as was the last post.

In short, it was rhetorical, just like yours, if you still don't get it.

That being said, you often post things of value, but I certainly wasnt hoping to do more than follow your rhetorical question, with the same exact one...mostly...because you kind of deserved it.

I honestly cant imagine how that wasnt obvious to you, since you did the same exact thing right above it.