@secondson saidDon't be daft. The suffering and perishing of the weak is 'the reality' of the evolutionary process. Why on Earth would I view that as morally good or acceptable? Man at his best strives to help those who suffer and, for example, prevent the extinction of animals that evolution and climate change have rendered vulnerable.
So, according to the evolutionary dogma you believe in its morally acceptable for the strong to inflict suffering on the weak. You do know don't you that the Bible condemns that notion?
It is the 'very point' that the Bible condemns such suffering that makes God's inactivity incongruous. You don't see that?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidNo, it would not be the case that all suffering indefinitely produces a positive moral reaction. Indeed, some suffering can only lead to further suffering. It is all up to how the person processing the suffering reacts.
Lamentably, I believe he is.
However, all suffering by humans (and even much of animal suffering) that can be connected back to others provides the potential for moral and spiritual growth among humans, even if the sufferer themself is incapable of growing from it due to death or other reasons.
We generally view that we become better through our experiences as Christians -- the only lamentable thing about this process is that there are those who do not become better, but this is due to their own choices.
I do not know how this would otherwise be "lamentable."
Are you going to explain that the world is a better place because suffering and existence itself is teleologically pointless?
@philokalia said"There are two kinds of pain. The sort of pain that makes you strong, or useless pain. The sort of pain that's only suffering. I have no patience for useless things.”
No, it would not be the case that all suffering indefinitely produces a positive moral reaction. Indeed, some suffering can only lead to further suffering. It is all up to how the person processing the suffering reacts.
However, all suffering by humans (and even much of animal suffering) that can be connected back to others provides the potential for moral and s ...[text shortened]... e world is a better place because suffering and existence itself is teleologically pointless?
House of Cards.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI don't feel your TV show quote fully confronted what I was saying.
"There are two kinds of pain. The sort of pain that makes you strong, or useless pain. The sort of pain that's only suffering. I have no patience for useless things.”
House of Cards.
... And how would becoming stronger be useless..? That doesn't make sense.
@philokalia saidOr perhaps you just misread the quote, hey?
I don't feel your TV show quote fully confronted what I was saying.
... And how would becoming stronger be useless..? That doesn't make sense.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt's daft to ascribe a process to evolution when one doesn't know for a fact that evolution is true. One can say they believe evolution is true, but not scientifically.
Don't be daft. The suffering and perishing of the weak is 'the reality' of the evolutionary process. Why on Earth would I view that as morally good or acceptable? Man at his best strives to help those who suffer and, for example, prevent the extinction of animals that evolution and climate change have rendered vulnerable.
It is the 'very point' that the Bible condemns such suffering that makes God's inactivity incongruous. You don't see that?
It is not incongruous for the Bible to condemn the acts of man for causing suffering. You don't see that? Misapplication of the points relative to the discussion of suffering as outlined in the Bible, and the correct understanding of what it is saying, is the issue that those who reject its precepts have.
@secondson saidNo, no. Evolution is true scientifically.
It's daft to ascribe a process to evolution when one doesn't know for a fact that evolution is true. One can say they believe evolution is true, but not scientifically.
It is not incongruous for the Bible to condemn the acts of man for causing suffering. You don't see that? Misapplication of the points relative to the discussion of suffering as outlined in the Bible, and ...[text shortened]... he correct understanding of what it is saying, is the issue that those who reject its precepts have.
1 edit
@secondson saidIt's not condescending. It's point-blank rather than evasive. And it's not out of context. You said: "Then if there's no God why do you waste your time trying to prove it?" This is a gimmicky non-point that you throw into the conversation time and time again ~ and it's a bit of a silly thing to ask on a debate and discussion forum where people who are interested in 'if there's no God' and 'if there's a God' gather to spend time talking about it .
That's an evasive and condescending question. You took me out of context. Can you not see that?
@fmf saidGhost of a Duke said, "There is no God in the equation who apparently has the power and love to do something about it", which is a blatant denial of the existence of God based on the presumption that God is not active in the affairs of men.
It's not condescending. It's point-blank rather than evasive. And it's not out of context. You said: "Then if there's no God why do you waste your time trying to prove it?" This is a gimmicky non-point that you throw into the conversation time and time again ~ and it's a bit of a silly thing to ask on a debate and discussion forum where people who are interested in 'if there's no God' and 'if there's a God' gather to spend time talking about it .
To which I replied, "Then if there's no God why do you waste your time trying to prove it?"
Then you most certainly took me out of context with what can only be seen as evasive and condescending question about what this forum is about. You're just making stuff up and throwing it into the mix without thinking it through.
@secondson saidPeople like me and Ghost of a Duke find the stuff talked about here interesting and not a waste of time [for the most part]. You use that dreary 'why waste your time' question over and over and over again [and you're not the only one]. It's a red herring.
Ghost of a Duke said, "There is no God in the equation who apparently has the power and love to do something about it", which is a blatant denial of the existence of God based on the presumption that God is not active in the affairs of men.
To which I replied, "Then if there's no God why do you waste your time trying to prove it?"
Then you most certainly took me out o ...[text shortened]... orum is about. You're just making stuff up and throwing it into the mix without thinking it through.
Ghost of a Duke's "denial of the existence of God based on the presumption that God is not active in the affairs of me", blatant or otherwise, is the upshot of his atheistic beliefs.
This is a message board populated by both atheists and theists. The answer to the question "If there's no God why do you waste your time trying to prove it?" is "Because this is a debate and discussion forum dedicated to such matters".
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAnd to prove that you'll throw in a plethora of theoretical propositions asserting that evolution is a scientific fact. Spare me.
No, no. Evolution is true scientifically.
The thing I find curiously odd is how people can adopt a philosophical world view based on a theory. To support that philosophical world view they convince themselves that evolution has to be true, otherwise their house of cards comes tumbling down.
They'd have been better off with agnosticism than to state categorically there is no God because he doesn't intervene in the suffering of mankind the way they think God should that evolution produces, all the while excusing man of accountability for his own acts and attributing suffering to a nameless faceless force called evolution. Obtuse reasoning. Not very well thought out.
@fmf saidAll the while people like you and Ghost of a Duke obfuscate rebuttal by ignoring the salient points made by your opponents and focus on mundane issues and asking irrelevant questions not relative to the points of contention.
This is a message board populated by both atheists and theists. The answer to the question "If there's no God why do you waste your time trying to prove it?" is "Because this is a debate and discussion forum dedicated to such matters".