just me wrote:I would say that parenting can be a way of improving the human condition. Educators, Childcare providers, nurses and medical staff. People who work in crisis centers.
I mean, goodness, a lot of people regardless of beliefs spend many hours a week trying to preserve good things.
Absolutely. I think creating a free stable society helps as well.
Cylon wrote:I may very well be wrong in my understanding, but I fail to see how it makes me any less moral a person to recognize the possibility that the universe might not last into eternity.
It doesn't make you "any less moral a person." The universe very well might not "last into eternity," and there's nothing wrong with taking actions based on that possibility. But so much is unknown about our universe and the universes surrounding it, that I think it's incredibly premature to conclude that because our universe will have an end, that humanity is destined to die with it. Prepare for the death of humanity, by all means; but prepare also for the possibility that we will find a way to escape the maelstrom (/ heat death / whatever it is) and go on living somewhere else.
Hey, I'm cool with that. I'm all for giving humanity the tools it needs to overcome its natural limitations.
Themis wrote:This simply is not true. You seem to have this idea, and nothing anyone says will change your mind. Why should I repeat what has been said on this topic before?
Themis, I can't force you to reply to my posts. But I made a genuine attempt to sum up the arguments as I remember them having been made. If you think I have misrepresented the arguments made by atheists and agnostics feel free to either point me to the thread where those arguments were made, or sum them up for me here on this thread. I apologize if I left anything out.
Why should you "repeat what has been said on this topic before"? No reason at all if you're not interested in an honest conversation about comparing LDS theology with atheism or agnosticism.
Themis wrote:This simply is not true. You seem to have this idea, and nothing anyone says will change your mind. Why should I repeat what has been said on this topic before?
Themis, I can't force you to reply to my posts. But I made a genuine attempt to sum up the arguments as I remember them having been made. If you think I have misrepresented the arguments made by atheists and agnostics feel free to either point me to the thread where those arguments were made, or sum them up for me here on this thread. I apologize if I left anything out.
Why should you "repeat what has been said on this topic before"? No reason at all if you're not interested in an honest conversation about comparing LDS theology with atheism or agnosticism.
I don't think you are interested in a honest discussion. Your own OP indicates you had certain conclusions about what atheists or agnostics say and nothing so far can change your mind. Even this thread after you left has been going over what atheists and agnostics are doing and believing about improving the human condition. How you can think they say do nothing and believe nothing suggest to me a very biased mind.
Themis wrote:Why not just answer the question and stop dodging it.
Themis, why are you asking me this question? Why are you asking me to "just answer the question and stop dodging it"?
Themis wrote:People gave examples and you said that they were not real good, and then people ask you what you think real good is.
When have I ever said that other people's examples "were not real good"?
What is so hard about answering such a simple question, especially when you ask others about good. You were the one to say one person's example was good, just not real good. You were asked multiple times what you think real good is, and even now you still want to dodge. You really expect people to engage with you when you won't answer their questions. by the way I never said you said it wasn't good, only that it was not real good.
just me wrote:Because you talk about it incessantly! Since it is the crux of all your arguments you should tell us what the heck you mean by it!
I talk about it incessantly, I agree. It is "the crux of all" my arguments, I agree. And therefore you ask me to tell you what "real good" is, why?
just me wrote:You expect "atheists and agnostics" to tell you how they are going to preserve "some good things forever." BUT you cannot tell anyone how YOU or your "good god" intend to do so or what it even means!
Just Me, did you even read the article you're responding to? I didn't say I expected atheists and agnostics to tell me "how they are going to preserve" some good things forever. All I expect them to do is set preserving some good things forever as a goal, to recognize that they need to try to preserve some good things forever.
just me wrote:Prove it. Prove that God is doing a damn thing.
I can't. I have no idea how to prove God is doing anything at all. And therefore what?
Therefore one atheist from a list of philanthropists can be proven to be doing more good than your invisible, unknown "good god."
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
KevinSim wrote:I talk about it incessantly, I agree. It is "the crux of all" my arguments, I agree. And therefore you ask me to tell you what "real good" is, why?
It's hard to have respect for someone who has no respect for others by not answering a simple question, about something he is proposing. The discussion really cannot go anywhere until this person shows some respect for others and answers the question. At this point I have no confidence he will.
Just Me, did you even read the article you're responding to? I didn't say I expected atheists and agnostics to tell me "how they are going to preserve" some good things forever. All I expect them to do is set preserving some good things forever as a goal, to recognize that they need to try to preserve some good things forever.
Atheists and agnostics are already doing it whether you refuse to see it or not. people have been bringing it up without you in this and other threads you brought up. At this point I think you have an agenda here that is not what you state above.
The more I read Kevin's responses the more I think the problem is "we are just not asking the right questions".
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."