Opinions on God?

[Baron d'Holbach]

3 minutes ago, bimbo36 said:

Then that's a lot of stupid people

Not really. People used religion for subjection. Order and control. People are replace by kings and queens and that turn into governments. 

Religion is here for the meek and timid. A distraction to man's progress of growth. 

Edited August 7, 2017 by Baron d'Holbach

[bimbo36]

And man is a pissed of species , full of anger and competition and the earth is a strange filth

[Baron d'Holbach]

Just now, bimbo36 said:

And man is a pissed of species , full of anger and competition and the earth is a strange filth

We are not piss. Just that we evolved through a Darwinian process. "Survival of the fittest". 

Earth is just beautiful. It is strange because man is fragile against it 

 

[bimbo36]

And why is Africa full of fit people ? Is it evolution too ?

[Baron d'Holbach]

We are weak agaisnt jungle animals, we are weak agaisnt thunder and storms, we are weak agaisnt mountains and terrains. And waterfall currents. 

This is why strangeness will appear to the mind of fragile man 

[Baron d'Holbach]

1 minute ago, bimbo36 said:

And why is Africa full of fit people ? Is it evolution too ?

Yes sir. Human beings originally came out of Africa. To survive Africa you have to be fit. Always running for your next meat. Or running away from a lion. Or climbing the tree for a mango or coconut. And much more.

 

Long journeys to a water pond 

[bimbo36]

Why cant everyone look like people in FTV , that would have solved a lot more problems .

[Baron d'Holbach]

Just now, bimbo36 said:

Why cant everyone look like people in FTV , that would have solved a lot more problems .

Never. Why. Climate, weather, air pressure, food, and hardship molds the face and body of a man. 

Live in the cold climate countries. You might end up being small.

Live in heated sun burning countries. You might end up being black 

Etch 

[John Cuthber]

4 minutes ago, bimbo36 said:

Why cant everyone look like people in FTV , that would have solved a lot more problems .

We do; it's just that most people don't notice.
Part of that is that they are told not to.

The "God" idea isn't the cause of xenophobia but, it sure as hell exploits it.

 

[Moontanman]

The only thing I know of about god, if there is one, he/she ignores everyone equally.. 

Edited August 7, 2017 by Moontanman

[Damateur]

On 7/30/2017 at 3:49 AM, dordle-loddle said:

Do you believe in God? Why?

   Nope. There is no evidence for a god. The universe does not need a god to exist and function.

   There is evidence (like childhood cancer) that a benevolent rational god does not exist. Childhood cancer (and other terrible things) are evidence that IF a god exists, it is malevolent and for me it is far more comforting to not believe in such a god - to think that there is no god taking joy in our suffering.

 

4 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Because the human man will oppress you and torture you and bring you to submission if you don't. 

   Shouldn't that say "Other humans will oppress you and torture you and bring you to submission if you do (believe in god)." ?

[Baron d'Holbach]

56 minutes ago, Damateur said:

   

   Shouldn't that say "Other humans will oppress you and torture you and bring you to submission if you do (believe in god)." ?

Semantics at it's best when it comes to religion 

[Moontanman]

On 8/7/2017 at 4:53 PM, bimbo36 said:

Then what exactly is all these Old testament , new testament and Quran ?

Fairy tales, myths, bullshit... 

[Area54]

On 08/08/2017 at 0:09 AM, Damateur said:

      There is evidence (like childhood cancer) that a benevolent rational god does not exist. Childhood cancer (and other terrible things) are evidence that IF a god exists, it is malevolent and for me it is far more comforting to not believe in such a god - to think that there is no god taking joy in our suffering.

It seems to me that choosing not to believe in a malevolent God, because it is more comforting, is exactly equivalent to believers in a benevolent, rational God  who offers eternal life. Both are based upon desire, not logic. I'm an equal opportunity non-believer.

[Damateur]

On 8/22/2017 at 3:16 AM, Area54 said:

It seems to me that choosing not to believe in a malevolent God, because it is more comforting, is exactly equivalent to believers in a benevolent, rational God  who offers eternal life. Both are based upon desire, not logic. I'm an equal opportunity non-believer.

So you think taking comfort in a logical answer is the same as believing in what appears to be fantasy? That doesn't seem to be a well thought out stance. Can you explain that reasoning? Or did you mistakenly take my shorthand of "Nope. There is no evidence for a god. The universe does not need a god to exist and function." as belief rather than logic and reason? Or were you just being dismissive and flip? (Your wording seems to me to lend the most credence to this.)

[Area54]

You stated very clearly that you preferred to believe in the non-existence of a malevolent God because it was more comforting not to. That is, your given reason for not beleiving in a malevolent God was based upon how it made you feel rather than upon any logical argument. If this is not what you meant you should have phrased yout thoughts in a radically different way. You should certainly not have stated so definitively that

On 22/08/2017 at 9:16 AM, Area54 said:

for me it is far more comforting to not believe in such a god - to think that there is no god taking joy in our suffering.

I'm sorry you viewed my epigrammatic summary of my position as flippant, rather than simultaneously concise and witty, but then such things are often a matter of personal taste.

[Damateur]

   It is rude to tell someone what they said. What you claim is only what you read into my terse post.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Damateur

[Area54]

10 hours ago, Damateur said:

   It is rude to tell someone what they said. What you claim is only what you read into my terse post.

I merely repeated your own words. What is rude about that? If you did not want what you said repeated then perhaps you should not have said it.

In the light of your first objection and now this subsequent one I have read and reread your disputed post multiple times. Despite my best efforts to read it differently it always comes out with you saying what you appeared to say. I accept unreservedly that you did not mean what you appeared to mean. Perhaps you should try to write more clearly in future.

As to rudeness, downvoting someone because of an error in writing you have made is very definitely rude. My thanks to the member who very kindly corrected that with an upvote.

Now let that be an end to the matter. Since I clearly cannot correctly interpret your words correctly I shall be placing you on Ignore.

[iNow]

The ignore feature is horrible and the people who use it are IMO making a mistake. Instead of actually ignoring people, you're refusing to even see what they wrote. The bubble just gets thicker. The thoughts just get narrower.

[/off-topic soapbox]

[Area54]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

The ignore feature is horrible and the people who use it are IMO making a mistake. Instead of actually ignoring people, you're refusing to even see what they wrote. The bubble just gets thicker. The thoughts just get narrower.

[/off-topic soapbox]

Damateur has been rude, but more pertinently has denied any responsibility for the ambiguity of his statements.

I would not ignore someone simply for being rude. I would not place on Ignore someone who simply held different thoughts, regardless how different they might be. However, Damateur has demonstrated that his thoughts are not different to mine, but unintelligible to me. I see no merit in reading posts that are unintelligble. That's why I only read internet sites in English. Out of courtesy, to save Damateur the trouble of responding to me, I've advised him I shall not be seeing anything he posts. The alternative would be seeing it and probably not understanding it.

You suggested I may be refusing to see what (s)he wrote. I'm countering that I am unable to understand what (s)he wrote, because (s)he claims my interpretation is comepletely wrong. With my very best efforts I cannot make my understanding of Damateurs written words match Damnateur says they mean. I don't think that provides any grounds for useful dialogue.

Apart from this specific situation I am in general agreement with your point.

[In truth I don't even know how to place someone on Ignore, so I was just not going to bother with any future posts from Damateur.]

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

[In truth I don't even know how to place someone on Ignore, so I was just not going to bother with any future posts from Damateur.]

1

I agree that he/she has a rather thin skin and subsequently not suited to a discussion forum, but never say never.

[Area54]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 but never say never.

I never do.

[dimreepr]

Sorry, but you never have to if you ignore everything they say. 

[iNow]

If ones goal is to better understand a person or topic, that can only be achieved by offering MORE attention to it, not LESS.  [/fortune cookie wisdom]

[Area54]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

If ones goal is to better understand a person or topic, that can only be achieved by offering MORE attention to it, not LESS.  [/fortune cookie wisdom]

If one's goal is to avoid fecal residue one should stay out of the pigsty. [/Area54 Rule 20.2]