Christianity

[Rosy]

If someone I loved died in a tragedy, I'd want good to come from it. It would help me come to terms with what happened and help me not to think of it simply as a tragedy. Are you saying that good can't come from tragic circumstances?

I don't see how God is responsible for the bushfires though. Surely that was the idiot that lit them!

I'm not saying good can't come from tragic circumstances at all. If people laud God for what he creates and the wonders he provides though I can't see how they deny his influence or justify his lack of prevention when bad things happen...especially for the reasons people have given on this thread.

There are several bushfires and they aren't all the result of arsonists. Don't forget it was a 45++ degree day in a drought stricken and tinder dry state.

 

[Disco08]

If someone I loved died in a tragedy, I'd want good to come from it. It would help me come to terms with what happened and help me not to think of it simply as a tragedy. Are you saying that good can't come from tragic circumstances?

I don't see how God is responsible for the bushfires though. Surely that was the idiot that lit them!

I can wear that as long as we don't attribute any intervention to God. As I said earlier, if we start giving God credit for other earthly miracles, we need to then answer why he wouldn't act to prevent tragedies such as these.

If you have a God that is capable of stopping a tragedy, surely that God is responsible for its eventuality if they do nothing to prevent it. In the case of an omnipowerful creator God it makes sense that they are responsible for every act that happens given that they created things with full knowledge of how they were going to turn out. For instance, God knew these bushfires were going to happen before he even created the universe. He could have changed his plans to ensure a different reality, but chose not to. This makes Him ultimately responsible, no?

Surely this is Evo's determinist philosophy. Everything is determined by initial conditions.

You are forgetting free moral agency. We are all gods in our own minds - sometimes we set things in train which are outside God's original purpose.

I'm not forgetting it as such, I just can't see how it can possibly fit side by side with the notion of an omnipowerful creator. To me it's a complete logical fallacy.

 

[evo]

Surely this is Evo's determinist philosophy. Everything is determined by initial conditions.

I don't think you really understand my position, but anyway.

You are forgetting free moral agency. We are all gods in our own minds - sometimes we set things in train which are outside God's original purpose.

Then God isn't omnipotent.It is good that we have that settled.

Why would one even want to worship him?

 

[sonofjacko]

The past five days has tested my very strong faith to the point of breaking.

But my faith in Australia and Australians has not.

The spirit and generosity of our magnificent country can not be denied.

It's selfish to apportion blame.

 

[Rosy]

It's selfish to apportion blame.

I don't think anyone is apportioning blame.  More questioning why positive things are claimed in the name of God but tragedies never are. Fair question when it's virtually claimed that God punishes innocent people for others' evil.

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

The selfish bit i find interesting from a philosophic/psychological perspective.

It seems to me everyone acts out of self interest, even when they are being very generous. ie ultimately there's no such thing as true altruism.

Sounds like a typically circular philosophical argument. Monty Python might have to revise Bruce's Philosophers Song to slot "evo" in there somewhere. ;D

But I'm not sure I follow. So what does your textbook atheist with no religious-ish beliefs (i.e., Christianity, karma, some general 'way' of the universe) stand to gain by giving financially to the bushfire appeal. Is it that, rather than acting out of some sort of altruistic ideal (conscious or subconscious), they are trying to alleviate some sort internal compulsion, such as guilt?

 

[Rosy]

The past five days has tested my very strong faith to the point of breaking.

I find that comment very interesting considering your private harrassment and ordinary behaviour under your multiple usernames on the internet.  I don't understand why Christians, if that's what you mean by your faith, are so nasty, so obsessed with mod-bashing and such smartarses towards others.  Surely those things are way out of line with the Commandments?

 

[Disco08]

So what does your textbook atheist with no religious-ish beliefs (i.e., Christianity, karma, some general 'way' of the universe) stand to gain by giving financially to the bushfire appeal. Is it that, rather than acting out of some sort of altruistic ideal (conscious or subconscious), they are trying to alleviate some sort internal compulsion, such as guilt?

Couldn't it just be compassion Mr P?

It's selfish to apportion blame.

No one here is apportioning blame to God. Those of us that may seem to be don't actually believe in Him.

I don't think it's at all selfish to blame whoever lit the fires for the outcomes though.

 

[Djevv]

I'm not saying good can't come from tragic circumstances at all. If people laud God for what he creates and the wonders he provides though I can't see how they deny his influence or justify his lack of prevention when bad things happen...especially for the reasons people have given on this thread.

There are several bushfires and they aren't all the result of arsonists. Don't forget it was a 45++ degree day in a drought stricken and tinder dry state.

Yep fires are a natural part of the Australian bush. We all know that, noone more so than people who live there. Why blame God?

 

[sonofjacko]

I find that comment very interesting considering your private harrassment and ordinary behaviour under your multiple usernames on the internet. I don't understand why Christians, if that's what you mean by your faith, are so nasty, so obsessed with mod-bashing and such smartarses towards others. Surely those things are way out of line with the Commandments?

You mentioned something similar in a PM.

Once again, I have no idea what you are talking about.

What is wrong with you?

 

[evo]

But I'm not sure I follow. So what does your textbook atheist with no religious-ish beliefs (i.e., Christianity, karma, some general 'way' of the universe) stand to gain by giving financially to the bushfire appeal. Is it that, rather than acting out of some sort of altruistic ideal (conscious or subconscious), they are trying to alleviate some sort internal compulsion, such as guilt?

Sure,why not?Or just to feel good about oneself.It feels good to give;right?

But you don't need to just qualify it to atheists.Chrisitans give to feel good about themselves too surely?

Even if they did it because they think thats what God wants them to do,it's still self interested.

I've been giving to one of those African relief funds for years,.I don't do it because God wants me to.So,why do I do it?

 

[Djevv]

I don't think you really understand my position, but anyway.

lol. Usually your writings are quite difficult to decipher but I understood that one fully.

Then God isn't omnipotent.It is good that we have that settled.

Settled in your mind a long time ago evidently.

Why would one even want to worship him?

I don't worship him because of His omnipotence. I simply worship Him.

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

Couldn't it just be compassion Mr P?

Compassion is defined as "Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it.". Which is what I'm asking.

In the case of no true altruism, one could argue that the only reason for acting out of compassion is to alleviate, or act upon, the desire or urge to relieve suffering, which again probably evolved for social cohesive/survival purposes.

But now that I think about it, it is a silly question that I raised. We can reduce all emotions, theoretically at least, to their evolutionary base. But such reductionism is of limited use.

 

[evo]

lol. Usually your writings are quite difficult to decipher but I understood that one fully.

Well I can tell you confidently that you don't, given that you used the term "initial conditions"

 

[Rosy]

Why blame God?

I'm not blaming God. I'm not praising him for creating all things bright and beautiful or creating miracles either. I have already posted that I've been given no reason to believe God exists so my comments are from a neutral viewpoint. I certainly don't believe anyone could be so terrible to punish innocent people for the evil of others and I certainly don't think feeling good about helping victims is a positive in the context of the suffering of others. I don't understand how certain people praise God for the positives but never apportion any responsibility for the tragedies.

 

[Djevv]

Well I can tell you confidently that you don't, given that you used the term "initial conditions"

There are many scientists that believe the universe had a beginning. It's called the 'Big Bang'. I'm one of them. Presumably, according to determinism, everything we have now is a result of what was begun then. But I suppose you are correct that I don't know everything about this philosophy, and don't claim to, I just understood it sufficiently to engage in the discussion on the Woo thread.

At the end of the day I'm not up for tedious discussions on omnipotence that weve had before. I'm happy to simply disagree. Hope your'e OK with that.

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

Sure,why not?Or just to feel good about oneself.It feels good to give;right?

True, but why does it feel good? Why does anything feel good (or bad)? Evolutionary psychologists would say in order to motivate behaviours to promote survival (that nasty little selfish gene!) But does the fact that it 'feels good' invalidate it as truly altruistic? There isn't much (some would argue there is nothing) in life that we can separate from our emotional experiences.

But you don't need to just qualify it to atheists. Chrisitans give to feel good about themselves too surely?

True - or to satisfy some other internal need.

 

[sonofjacko]

There are many scientists that believe the universe had a beginning. It's called the 'Big Bang'.

Personally I find the idea that we all sprung from cosmic dust as implausible as the idea of a god.

I choose to believe in God. As for Christianity that whole God in three stuff is very tricky.

 

[evo]

True, but why does it feel good? Why does anything feel good (or bad)? Evolutionary psychologists would say in order to motivate behaviours to promote survival (that nasty little selfish gene!) But does the fact that it 'feels good' invalidate it as truly altruistic?

I think it does by definition.

It's no big deal really,it is still 'good' to give.Recognising that it is self interested doesn't necessarily degrade it.It is just something interesting to consider.

There isn't much (some would argue there is nothing) in life that we can separate from our emotional experiences.
True - or to satisfy some other internal need.

In Eastern enlightment some of the guys who are really successful at it get to a state where they are without self,and emotionless.They don't value one thing over another.So 'love' everything equally.

I suppose one could call that true altruism.It is very rare though.

 

[Djevv]

Personally I find the idea that we all sprung from cosmic dust as implausible as the idea of a god.

I choose to believe in God. As for Christianity that whole God in three stuff is very tricky.

The 'Big Bang' is a beginning point, what came beforehand noone knows. The Kalam Cosmological argument states that 'everything that has a beginning has a cause'. As a Christian I believe that cause was God.

You can explain the trinity as like the different states of matter: solid, liquid and gas, all equally water but all with different properties.

Jacko, have you suffered loss in the fires?