Further Proof there is No God

[Guest]

Worthless Israeli government rejects Genocide to line up with Turks.

WTF?

I'm guessing this has something to do with the "Armenian Genocide" (since he mentioned the Turks), which many govts have taken to officially endorsing as a genocide, which the Israeli govt hasn't (the US hasn't either by the way although I believe 42 state legislatures have).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognitio ... overnments

It's a complex issue that scholars continue to debate. Not denial of the deaths mind you (the counter argument to a genocide was that it was part of a civil war between Armenians and Muslims in Turkey that resulted in the deaths of many muslims as well during the WWI period), but whether or not it was an actual state sponsored genocide (the way the Holocaust was by Nazi Germany). I'm not going into it the issue too far though.

[curses I posted, well this issue is fairly relevant to my study so it's kosher...]

[_The Dude]

Is it wrong that I find it funny that the critic ex-mormons on this board may in their dementia when they grow old believe they're LDS again?

Awesome.

[_Roger Morrison]

"Further Proof there is no God" is not as important as the fact that there is a belief in God. Roger
*
*

[_John Larsen]

WTF?

I'm guessing this has something to do with the "Armenian Genocide" (since he mentioned the Turks), which many govts have taken to officially endorsing as a genocide, which the Israeli govt hasn't (the US hasn't either by the way although I believe 42 state legislatures have).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognitio ... overnments

It's a complex issue that scholars continue to debate. Not denial of the deaths mind you (the counter argument to a genocide was that it was part of a civil war between Armenians and Muslims in Turkey that resulted in the deaths of many muslims as well during the WWI period), but whether or not it was an actual state sponsored genocide (the way the Holocaust was by Nazi Germany). I'm not going into it the issue too far though.

[curses I posted, well this issue is fairly relevant to my study so it's kosher...]

Thanks for the clarification.

[_Roger Morrison]

Further to my above:

"God" is a moniker, a nick-name--as are Eloihim, (sp?) Jehovah & any other name--attempting to personify/label/identify the life-force that keeps life alive (for its alotted time) and the Universe in action. As human knowledge of the "life-force" increases, and our ability to apply our findingings, so will the quality of human life increase to the benefit of the Earth we share with all life...

That power, by whatever moniker, is undeniable. Ignorance and its allies, superstitions and prejudices, that shroud the exercise of knowledge are what keeps humanity waring in the dark.

Thankfully some, through the ages, have reached through the shroud/veil to bring us to the point of our scientific knowledge and benefit. Now we need the courage to address the humanistic social issues that religion's misunderstanding of "God" have enabled i.e. human suffering and abuses.

Ironically this malpractice was castigated by the so-called "Son of God" centuries ago... Conclusion: Ecclesiastics, Theologians and their like have not benefitted humanity as have those who reveal the truths of natural & human sciences...

Thanks for reading. Roger
*
*

[_antishock8]

Further to my above:

"God" is a moniker, a nick-name--as are Eloihim, (sp?) Jehovah & any other name--attempting to personify/label/identify the life-force that keeps life alive (for its alotted time) and the Universe in action. As human knowledge of the "life-force" increases, and our ability to apply our findingings, so will the quality of human life increase to the benefit of the Earth we share with all life...

That power, by whatever moniker, is undeniable. Ignorance and its allies, superstitions and prejudices, that shroud the exercise of knowledge are what keeps humanity waring in the dark.

Thankfully some, through the ages, have reached through the shroud/veil to bring us to the point of our scientific knowledge and benefit. Now we need the courage to address the humanistic social issues that religion's misunderstanding of "God" have enabled i.e. human suffering and abuses.

Ironically this malpractice was castigated by the so-called "Son of God" centuries ago... Conclusion: Ecclesiastics, Theologians and their like have not benefitted humanity as have those who reveal the truths of natural & human sciences...

Thanks for reading. Roger
*
*

I deny it until proved otherwise. Assertions aren't proofs.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I think the participants in this thread aren't quite understanding what John Larsen is getting at.

The point is that God doesn't have to allow (or create) dementia in order to preserve agency. He obviously did, though, so the standard argument from evil applies quite well.

[_The Nehor]

The point is that God doesn't have to allow (or create) dementia in order to preserve agency. He obviously did, though, so the standard argument from evil applies quite well.

What monolithic heights of omniscience you must have reached to be able to say that with surety.

[_JohnStuartMill]

The point is that God doesn't have to allow (or create) dementia in order to preserve agency. He obviously did, though, so the standard argument from evil applies quite well.

What monolithic heights of omniscience you must have reached to be able to say that with surety.

Which part do you doubt: that God created (or, at best, allowed) dementia, or that dementia isn't necessary to preserve agency? Neither of these are particularly controversial, although I understand that their implications are probably uncomfortable for you, in which case I don't know what to say.

[_asbestosman]

The point is that God doesn't have to allow (or create) dementia in order to preserve agency. He obviously did, though, so the standard argument from evil applies quite well.

Is preservation of agency the only possible justification for the existence of evil or suffering?