Anglican church against gay marriage

[United Marxist Nations]

Roommate is getting clearly agitated with me, so I will have to turn in, unfortunately. Goodnight, everyone.

[The Rich Port]

... You like philosophical discourse because it's not possible to reach conclusions about divinity in it? ... You're the worst philosopher ever, and, by extension, the worst scientist ever.

It doesn't need a purpose. Nothing does, technically.

And yet, ironically, the last time I checked, the religion you described has less purpose than a religion that followed Jesus's teachings about kindness, equality, and tolerance.

So, you know what, I'm gonna give it a purpose: to replace all of the madness that came before it.

Also, gnosticism hasn't failed. A religion doesn't "fail" because it has less followers than others.

I think you read to quickly and jumped to conclusions. I did say that I preferred philosophy in general to whatever mishmash of systems you were promulgating, the inference being that philosophy deals with the validity of the systems itself such as rationalism and empiricism. This can also be separated from my statement regarding divinity insomuch that I find that the topic of divinity within philosophy to be not as definitively settled as you find your mixture of rationalism and empiricism claims it to be. Say would you be able to confidently assert the qualities and relationship to the world of knowledge? If so you have rather done what the collective efforts of the worlds philosophers have never achieved in an afternoon. This can be coined Epistemology.

scio me nihil scire

You again miss the point I make regarding religion, religion itself has a self-justification. And that is what we are evaluating. What would you care that might be for Christianity?

You certainly argue a great deal for someone who claims that his very argument has no purpose. And you make a poor scientist for claiming that a belief system has failed because it empirically has failed to last a length of time.

Philosophy has not failed to settle the conflict between rationalism and empiricism... You have. What it failed to do was to mix them together into one... Which is not something I have done. I merely used BOTH logic and evidence to reach a conclusion. It's called SCIENCE.

Science does not claim to know everything... Unlike theology. Also... Did you seriously just fucking use a quote by Socrates, ordered to be killed for not believing in Gods and asking others to begin challenging the very fucking notion instead of blindly following what the priests say without question?

I could give a shit about religion's self-justification, especially Christianity. It's a lie; however comforting or beneficial it is, it deals in equal measure damage and deception. For one, I would have everybody fucking stop being in denial about their own biases so that we can actually selflessly help people instead of using charity and kindness as a way to please some asshole in the mental clouds and to convert people into believing in it and the biases it allegedly espouses.

As people have said before, God and his followers are the fucking selfish ones.

Sorry, missed that last point for being so fucking moronic the eyes rolled into the back of my head. Truth has no purpose either except to espouse itself. Do you judge truth as unworthy? Also... If that was a joke, it was an extremely unfunny one.

[Faustian Fantasies]

Philosophy has not failed to settle the conflict between rationalism and empiricism... You have. What it failed to do was to mix them together into one... Which is not something I have done.

Kant.

Kant, Kant, Kant.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

1) It is impossible to know how rich the Church is, but, by far, most of its spending goes to charity.

And paying the various victims of its innumerable scandals, from the Spanish and Irish Mothers whose children were shipped off to America to the molesting priests.

Thank God they didn't have to pay for Tuam, though, they made sure every child and girl there died.

2) So, you would rather the entire world (keep in mind, including you) be composed of senseless robots, merely imitations of humanity?

Its not so much a matter of if I want it, but if I am an automaton, subject to the various forces of nature and chance, the Descartian beast.

Beside which, if God create everyone whose character is such that they would never choose to do evil, how are they less free than this world where God (it must be kept in mind), still made everyone have the character they have, only that there is a great deal of evil being done.

3) Let's take an example of intervention: A warlord in Liberia stopped his war crimes (and his war), and now dedicates his life to charity because of (according to him) a vision of Christ. Now, he could have just refused the vision, as countless others have done as is evident by your list. However, does this mean that God did not attempt to stop him? No, it simply means the person refused to change.

Or he could have struck this warlord dead, or else effect some sort of change that would render him impotent to commit his evil deeds, or else interfere by using his omnipotence to protect everyone from his troops, like Daniel in the lion's den.

[Threlizdun]

No, you aren't. What could you possibly do to help people who are being murdered? What can you do to help those who are starving across the globe? What can you do to help those who are doomed to a life of crime because of circumstances out of their control? What can you do to help those living in repressive dictatorships that will kill them for stepping out of line?

Your god on the other hand could solve all these problems with nothing more than a thought if he really was all powerful. But he doesn't.

So, you wish for all of humanity to be robotic slaves? Yes, He could take away our free will and force us to do as He pleases, but this would be pointless, as that would basically require stripping us of our senses entirely.

I'd argue we already basically are robotic slaves to the unconscious products of synapses firing off in our brain without us having any awareness of what is happening. However, what we are discussing is the inability to make particularly monstrous choices. Absolutely nothing would be lost by the inability to murder, rape, torture, or enslave others. We could still have the ability to decide how we would go about experiencing the wonderful things in this world as we wish. That sounds like a damn good existence.

Obviously no one person can, but think about how if enough people were to step in. The power of collective action has already been displayed in the world.

Which has nothing to do with your God getting you to worship him, unless you are about to argue that Christians are superior people incapable of wrong.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I am glad, for the same reasons you are. This stance will turn more young and tolerant people away from the outdated institution. Good riddance to it, and its influence. Let it die, braised in obsolescence and garnished in fairy-tale frippery.

[The Rich Port]

Roommate is getting clearly agitated with me, so I will have to turn in, unfortunately. Goodnight, everyone.

Yeah, that Holy Spirit's got work to do tomorrow, revealing itself to nobody in a way that can be corroborated.

Philosophy has not failed to settle the conflict between rationalism and empiricism... You have. What it failed to do was to mix them together into one... Which is not something I have done.

Kant.

Kant, Kant, Kant.

... Is that what he did in that book of his?

... All I saw was my life flashing before my eyes.

Seriously... If you understand Kant, which my own philosophy teacher didn't, and, according to him, various people have attempted to, please, enlighten me.

I couldn't follow a bloody thing he was saying.

I am glad, for the same reasons you are. This stance will turn more young and tolerant people away from the outdated institution. Good riddance to it, and its influence. Let it die, braised in obsolescence and garnished in fairy-tale frippery.

Nope.

According to Caninope, the Episcopalian Church is incredibly unpopular due to it's theology, and, as UMN said, Christianity has been around for 2,000 arduous, awful years, and the Anglican Church for hundreds.

Thank fucking Christ, ignorance and orthodoxy PREVAILED, and, hopefully, shall continue to prevail over reason and logic. BECAUSE WHO FUCKING NEEDS THOSE.

[Threlizdun]

And the same organization called for the Crusades, carried out the inquisition, covered up the rape of children by their priests, contributes to AIDs deaths around the world from their policy on contraceptives, and makes more money than some of the world's largest corporations.
He knew every tragedy that would happen before he made us. He could have anything he wanted, but this was what he desired. We sin because he made us to sin. Every rape, murder, torture, and enslavement occurred because he created specifically in a way that would ensure this would happen. If he exists, then he is responsible for every horrible thing we have ever done. He made psychopaths. Those aren't just regular people choosing to be bad. He made people that are incapable of caring about other people. He made Jeffrey Dahmer and decided that was exactly how he wanted him to be. He saw everything he would do, but choose not to prevent him from being born a psychopath. Our, supposed "free will", which neuroscience strongly indicates does not exist, is worthless when it comes to the freedom to do monstrous things. Your God supposedly decided that Hitler's freedom to be able to commit genocide was more important the the freedom of his victims of live. Why would you value the words of someone who believes that?

Again, fortunately this being almost certainly doesn't exist, nor does anything like it.

1) It is impossible to know how rich the Church is, but, by far, most of its spending goes to charity.

Yeah it's impossible to know how much they're keeping for themselves since they refuse to actually document the earnings and spending.

2) So, you would rather the entire world (keep in mind, including you) be composed of senseless robots, merely imitations of humanity?

Where are you getting the idea that the inability to murder, torture, rape, and enslave others would also mean we wouldn't be capable of making any choices? The "free will" of the victims of these acts is already deprived by the actions of the perpetrators, so if it's a choice between whether someone is free to murder or free to live without fear of being murdered, I would hope the choice is obvious.

3) Let's take an example of intervention: A warlord in Liberia stopped his war crimes (and his war), and now dedicates his life to charity because of (according to him) a vision of Christ. Now, he could have just refused the vision, as countless others have done as is evident by your list. However, does this mean that God did not attempt to stop him? No, it simply means the person refused to change.

Why can't god simply flood them with the memories of the person they are about to victimize and understand the harm they are about to inflict and why it is wrong? That's something your god would certainly be capable of doing. He doesn't have to physically stop them, though again, he totally should if he exists, but if he wanted to go about this rationally then everyone who attempted murder would be talking about how God personally spoke to them about how what they were doing was wrong. That's not hard, and it doesn't impede on their "free will". If your God only manifests himself as feelings (or sometimes visions that he apparently only gives to some people but not to others), then he has a really stupid idea of how to inform people of wrongdoing for a supposedly omniscient being.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Nope.

According to Caninope, the Episcopalian Church is incredibly unpopular due to it's theology, and, as UMN said, Christianity has been around for 2,000 arduous, awful years, and the Anglican Church for hundreds.

Thank fucking Christ, ignorance and orthodoxy PREVAILED, and, hopefully, shall continue to prevail over reason and logic. BECAUSE WHO FUCKING NEEDS THOSE.

Pffft. People who are going to Hell. That's who.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

... Is that what he did in that book of his?

... All I saw was my life flashing before my eyes.

Seriously... If you understand Kant, which my own philosophy teacher didn't, and, according to him, various people have attempted to, please, enlighten me.

I couldn't follow a bloody thing he was saying.

Once, in a vain attempt to better myself and read all the great works of philosophy, I decided to try and read Kant- after thirty minutes of valiant struggle, I have yet to get past the frontispiece.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Nope.

According to Caninope, the Episcopalian Church is incredibly unpopular due to it's theology, and, as UMN said, Christianity has been around for 2,000 arduous, awful years, and the Anglican Church for hundreds.

Thank fucking Christ, ignorance and orthodoxy PREVAILED, and, hopefully, shall continue to prevail over reason and logic. BECAUSE WHO FUCKING NEEDS THOSE.

Pffft. People who are going to Hell. That's who.

I never got this whole anti-theism thing- religion is something that is objectively silly, and at time bigoted, sure, but in its most benign form, it does little harm, and sometimes can inspire people to do much good.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I never got this whole anti-theism thing- religion is something that is objectively silly, and at time bigoted, sure, but in its most benign form, it does little harm, and sometimes can inspire people to do much good.

I don't even have the motivation to list and source every fucked-up thing religion's done to the world. I'm just gonna toss a few compilations your way and hope for the best.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/6-ways-r ... e-bad-good
http://www.alternet.org/belief/12-worst ... shed-world
http://theunboundedspirit.com/the-negat ... n-society/
http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html

Once, in a vain attempt to better myself and read all the great works of philosophy, I decided to try and read Kant- after thirty minutes of valiant struggle, I have yet to get past the frontispiece.

As someone who legitimately enjoys philosophy, I have to agree. Not enough drugs in the world.

[The Rich Port]

1) It is impossible to know how rich the Church is, but, by far, most of its spending goes to charity.

Yeah it's impossible to know how much they're keeping for themselves since they refuse to actually document the earnings and spending.

2) So, you would rather the entire world (keep in mind, including you) be composed of senseless robots, merely imitations of humanity?

Where are you getting the idea that the inability to murder, torture, rape, and enslave others would also mean we wouldn't be capable of making any choices? The "free will" of the victims of these acts is already deprived by the actions of the perpetrators, so if it's a choice between whether someone is free to murder or free to live without fear of being murdered, I would hope the choice is obvious.

3) Let's take an example of intervention: A warlord in Liberia stopped his war crimes (and his war), and now dedicates his life to charity because of (according to him) a vision of Christ. Now, he could have just refused the vision, as countless others have done as is evident by your list. However, does this mean that God did not attempt to stop him? No, it simply means the person refused to change.

Why can't god simply flood them with the memories of the person they are about to victimize and understand the harm they are about to inflict and why it is wrong? That's something your god would certainly be capable of doing. He doesn't have to physically stop them, though again, he totally should if he exists, but if he wanted to go about this rationally then everyone who attempted murder would be talking about how God personally spoke to them about how what they were doing was wrong. That's not hard, and it doesn't impede on their "free will". If your God only manifests himself as feelings (or sometimes visions that he apparently only gives to some people but not to others), then he has a really stupid idea of how to inform people of wrongdoing for a supposedly omniscient being.

To be fair, it's also because the Catholic Church itself probably doesn't really know. It's a fucking mess, apparently.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... _from.html

And even then, God has given us a mandate that we must follow or else we will burn in Hell, in eternal agony, separated from our loved ones, never to feel a positive emotion ever again, if we disobey so much as one and don't dare apologize for it, or, if people believe in Purgatory, we get to spend countless years repenting for it. In said mandate, falling in love with a member of the same gender and/or questioning doctrine is equated to murder and every other horrible crime; break one, Hell or Purgatory. But, hey, I hear some people are into that sort of thing. So, all that choice!

Or, you know... Instead of using schizophrenia to torture people with illusions of paranoia and fear, why not just... Do a little infomercial.

[Mostrov]

In the context of western society, most christian women don't wear headdresses to church.

This is the normative state because? Its worth noting that the Church of England sanctioned the possibility of divorce in 2002 and even then with a statement that doesn't sound to dissimilar to anything that Pope Francis tried to promulgate in 2015.

Which is what I am indicating, many of these customs and the like were followed quite strictly until fairly recently - in the case of headware inside Churches it was followed in the Anglican Communion until the middle of the 20th Century. And I would claim that the reason for the abandoning for much of this has to do with the rise of secularism rather than any fundamental change in belief of the church itself. Reaction rather than internal so to speak. Which in some respects I find it to be not particularly useful, because in my mind there were many other times that the Church found itself to be in crisis before reasserting itself. In the case of the Church of England the English Civil War was far more traumatic theologically than the donning and undonning of headware.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

Christians disregard the OT for the most part. However, they are still willing to follow it when it comes to things that fit into their worldview, such as the ten commandments. I have heard/read christians using Leviticus to denounce homosexuality.

I am questioning why, to some christians, it is okay to cherrypick things that support their views, but then claim that cherrypicking or ignoring parts of the bible is not okay.

No, I quite understood it. I was just hoping that you would see that your question does have some holes in it. Anyway, I will try and answer to the best of my knowledge.

The first is that different Christians use different parts of the bible differently. In the case of the uttering of Leviticus this has its roots in the protestant reformation more than anything, but also significantly in the Great Spiritual Revival of the 19th Century where many of the modern American protestant splinter sects actually originate from or at least as we understand modern fundamentalism. I cannot claim to fully understand their justifications for it, as I don't particularly hold to it myself I can't answer on their behalf. Rest assured though I am almost certain someone has gone to the effort to defend it at great length in a way that you would find satisfactory. I however do not know one from the top of my head.

Secondly is that other Churches use different interpretations of that. Most notably the Catholic, Orthodox and parts of the Anglican Church. They would simply defend the words of St. Paul who reiterates the Leviticus charge, as well as Christ's reiteration of the Masoretic definition of marriage on a purely scriptural basis. And both of these are in the New Testament, which of course allows us to fully claim that the Old Law being fulfilled is true. Additionally the role in which tradition plays is very important, because that is what informs us on how to understand the Bible in the first place as it was the institution that created it (There are many good arguments on this very matter in the various iterations of the Christian discussion thread). There of course has been no indication that tradition in Christianity either sanctions same-sex marriage or homosexuality.

I do think it to be quite a silly claim that because neither Christ specifically doesn't mention something means that he is either neutral on the matter or condones it. Again if we are to think that Christ was merely the harbinger of magically enforced happiness and equality it makes the scene of anger in the temple as being rather embarrassing.

The inevitable counter-charge of surrounding the word ἀρσενοκοίταις I outline below:

I question that there was a Greek word that actually encompasses homosexuality insomuch as all male-male sexual interaction was concerned, at least as far as I am aware. Hence the neologism.
I find it more unlikely that it is actually a term for Temple Prostitution for which a vocabulary existed and did not require a word and was a concept that was quite understood in the Hellenic world prior to its interaction with the Levant. Moreover how has it come to mean it now, why has this word retained a definition if it were secretly a different prohibition? The various stipulations against πορνεία, μοιχεία & μαλακία should evince this; given that one is a defined as a term you state it might be. Why not παιδεραστία? etc.

At least Bluth dispensed with this by claiming it was all Paul's meddling.

Also note that even Juvenal et al. don't prove anything as has also been claimed in this thread, as the above is still an issue with no terminology for what we describe as sexuality, as there are no Roman laws which document the gay marriage. Moreover my reading of Juvenal is that people celebrate these rites but that there is under official recognition. Indeed if anything it decries it and says that if things are to keep up with the degeneration of the old Roman ethics soon they will be. If I were to be less charitably inclined, given the majority of the content as explicit satire he could just as easily be accusing people of participating in these ceremonies to accuse them of blasphemy and degeneration without them actually doing so, the description of the garments particularly struck me this way. I do often find the arguments put forward like this to often be the result of highly selective reading.

It is worth noting that there was a similar conversation in which both you and I were participants, I cannot say as to whether we actually directly spoke, about Homosexuality and the Bible or somesuch.

[The Rich Port]

Pffft. People who are going to Hell. That's who.

I never got this whole anti-theism thing- religion is something that is objectively silly, and at time bigoted, sure, but in its most benign form, it does little harm, and sometimes can inspire people to do much good.

I'm not an anti-theist.

I am, however, in opposition to false beliefs and falsehoods in general.

In it's most benign form? Sure.

But, the thing is, most religions do things that are NOT benign, and, as Mostrov showed, people don't want to assume that benign form simply because they don't agree with that, because it's not what their church teaches is the "true" religion.

If you are a believer, an orthodox believer especially, you are anti-theistic to others, and yet, this is dismissed as simply being their "beliefs".

As an atheist, I just gotta say... People who listen to Jesus shouldn't throw stones. Because only HE can throw stones.

[Mostrov]

I preface this by saying that this will in all likelihood be my last post for a while, certainly the day. I also dislike as a rule point by point dissection for the effect is has in splintering replies, but I feel it would be easier to write in this case

Philosophy has not failed to settle the conflict between rationalism and empiricism... You have. What it failed to do was to mix them together into one... Which is not something I have done. I merely used BOTH logic and evidence to reach a conclusion. It's called SCIENCE.

I implore you to read on what exactly rationalism or empiricism actually are before you say anything more. Here is a good source.

Science does not claim to know everything... Unlike theology. Also... Did you seriously just fucking use a quote by Socrates, ordered to be killed for not believing in Gods and asking others to begin challenging the very fucking notion instead of blindly following what the priests say without question?

Where do the claims that theologians claim omniscience in their field arrive from? Indeed many theologians speak of divine mystery!

The quote is, I feel, no less relevant concerning what I think in terms of knowledge. The more I look the more I find the darkness of the unknown.

I could give a shit about religion's self-justification, especially Christianity. It's a lie; however comforting or beneficial it is, it deals in equal measure damage and deception. For one, I would have everybody fucking stop being in denial about their own biases so that we can actually selflessly help people instead of using charity and kindness as a way to please some asshole in the mental clouds and to convert people into believing in it and the biases it allegedly espouses.

I believe that was what was being discussed however. On the internal justifications that a religion uses to arrive at certain conclusions? Or were we not discussing the Anglican Communions reasoning behind its decision? Or indeed anything to do with the Anglican Communion at all?

As people have said before, God and his followers are the fucking selfish ones.

The mere fact that Theodicy exists as a word should I am sure make it apparent that people have considered several of your ideas before you have arrived at any such conclusion.

[The Rich Port]

I preface this by saying that this will in all likelihood be my last post for a while, certainly the day. I also dislike as a rule point by point dissection for the effect is has in splintering replies, but I feel it would be easier to write in this case

Philosophy has not failed to settle the conflict between rationalism and empiricism... You have. What it failed to do was to mix them together into one... Which is not something I have done. I merely used BOTH logic and evidence to reach a conclusion. It's called SCIENCE.

I implore you to read on what exactly rationalism or empiricism actually are before you say anything more. Here is a good source.

Science does not claim to know everything... Unlike theology. Also... Did you seriously just fucking use a quote by Socrates, ordered to be killed for not believing in Gods and asking others to begin challenging the very fucking notion instead of blindly following what the priests say without question?

Where do the claims that theologians claim omniscience in their field arrive from? Indeed many theologians speak of divine mystery!

The quote is, I feel, no less relevant concerning what I think in terms of knowledge. The more I look the more I find the darkness of the unknown.

I could give a shit about religion's self-justification, especially Christianity. It's a lie; however comforting or beneficial it is, it deals in equal measure damage and deception. For one, I would have everybody fucking stop being in denial about their own biases so that we can actually selflessly help people instead of using charity and kindness as a way to please some asshole in the mental clouds and to convert people into believing in it and the biases it allegedly espouses.

I believe that was what was being discussed however. On the internal justifications that a religion uses to arrive at certain conclusions? Or were we not discussing the Anglican Communions reasoning behind its decision? Or indeed anything to do with the Anglican Communion at all?

As people have said before, God and his followers are the fucking selfish ones.

The mere fact that Theodicy exists as a word should I am sure make it apparent that people have considered several of your ideas before you have arrived at any such conclusion.

... How about YOU read it. Nothing I read in an article you couldn't be arsed to link to contradicts my usage of both.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ratio ... iricism/#4

.... No, actually. We're discussing whether the Anglican Church has the authority to make such decisions. Logically and empirically, it does not. Because God has not been proven to exist. Their beliefs are as justified as those of churches who believe that homosexuality is neither evil nor barred from marriage. Which is to say, not at fucking all. In my eyes, it is the latter church that has more authority because it has wisely discarded such a ridiculous and unfounded belief in favor of helping people find meaning and happiness in their lives and not pandering to bigotry.

That's funny, because, despite all this divine mystery, doctrine is considered infallible. The only fucking mystery is why nobody has realized that contradiction before.

Maybe you should take off your blinders of faith and blind adherence to doctrine, as FUCKING SOCRATES asked people to do, instead of bathing in ignorance and blatant fucking HYPOCRISY.

... Now THAT'S a funny joke.

Theodicy (/θiːˈɒdɪsi/), in its most common form, attempts to answer the question why a good God permits the manifestation of evil.

First off, attempts =/= accomplishes.

Second off, I'm well fucking aware that people have been throwing their heads against the walls trying to figure that shit out for centuries. Unlike you, I actually studied philosophy.

And guess what? Nothing's been bloody conclusive, because no fucking logic and/or evidence was used in it's entire history, to the point some people ultimately concluded, WELL BEFORE THEODICY WAS INVENTED, that some aspects of the divine were NOT inherently good.

It's called Dystheism.

[Constantinopolis]

Look, I don't know your life or what you're going through, but I'm pretty sure that murdered kids needed your god's help more than you did. Doesn't it seem even the slightest bit odd that he prioritized getting you to worship him over saving lives?

He is not prioritizing anything. God does not have limited resources. He doesn't have to give up doing the less important things in order to focus on the more important. He can call out to UMN to worship Him, and call out to other people to stop the murder of children at the same time.

But many of those other people didn't listen.

He made humans knowing every sin that would ever be carried out, and he thought that was a great creation not needing of any improvement.

Would it have been better, according to you, if humans never existed?

This is a serious question. Forget God for a second, I'm asking about existence versus non-existence. Suppose you could press a button and erase Humankind from history, thus erasing all human suffering as well. Would you press this button? Should you? Is it better to have never been born, then to have been born and suffered?

If god is real and helps people, then where the hell is he for this child? Where was he when the nazis took over germany and systematically slaughtered millions? Where is he for victims of sex trafficking? Rape? Murder? Violence?

If he ignores dying children, but calls to people to worship him then he is a selfish monster. He is a being that stands by idly and watches people suffer. We have words for such beings. We call them psychopaths. If your god exists, then he is a monster. Fortunately, there is no evidence that this monster exists.

So you believe that it is evil to allow humans to have free will, if free will leads them to, for example, create a capitalist global system in which children starve, or to carry out the Holocaust?

Because let's be clear: You are accusing God of being a monster for failing to brainwash people to be good to each other.

However, what we are discussing is the inability to make particularly monstrous choices. Absolutely nothing would be lost by the inability to murder, rape, torture, or enslave others. We could still have the ability to decide how we would go about experiencing the wonderful things in this world as we wish. That sounds like a damn good existence.

The human brain does not have on/off switches that say, for example, "ABLE TO MURDER? Y/N". You can't remove our ability to murder, rape, torture, or enslave others, without re-wiring our thought processes to such an extent that we would be completely different entities, not human any more.

Which gets us back to the question: Do you think the suffering in the world is so horrible that it would have been better if Humanity never existed? Because now you are asking for a universe populated by a different, non-human kind of intelligence.

And I'd like evidence that God helps people out. He couldn't even keep children in his own house of worship from being sexually abused. And what about starving, dying children?

As I have stated, it is difficult to describe what spawned my newfound faith, but I know that it was the intercession of the Holy Spirit. I don't know how I know, but I do know it. It is a strange feeling.

I know what you're talking about, it's happened to me a few times.

It's a psychological phenomenon, and if it were more predictable, it could be adequately studied and there would be a rational explanation.

In other words, God called to you, and you ignored Him.

There is your answer to the question, "if God calls out to people, why doesn't He call out to those that could directly help starving children?" He does. And they ignore Him.

How is it okay for god to ignore them when they are dying, tortured, or damaged, while spending time to get you to worship him?

What makes you think God is ignoring them?

Many of the saints of the Church were tortured and murdered for the faith. Did God ignore the martyrs? They certainly did not seem to think that God was ignoring them. Quite the contrary.

Do you really believe that "Why does God let horrible things happen to good people?" is a valid argument against a religion that was literally founded by good people who got horribly murdered for their beliefs?

"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." -- Tertullian

Prove that Free Will is worth having

Your God supposedly decided that Hitler's freedom to be able to commit genocide was more important the the freedom of his victims of live.

So you really do believe that free will is evil, then?

Suppose you could press a button to brainwash all human beings such that they would never think of committing evil in the future. Would you press it? Should you? Do you think it would be a moral imperative to press it, and that you would be a sociopathic monster if you refused to do it? Because that's what you're saying about God.

* * * * * * *

TL;DR - Things I have learned from the atheists in this thread:

1. It would be good to abolish free will, at least to some extent, in order to brainwash people into never wanting to do evil stuff.

2. If a god or godlike entity existed, it would be good for this entity to use its power to seize control of the Earth and force people to always be nice to each other. In fact, an entity that had the power to do such a thing but chose not to, is evil.

3. HOW DARE YOU OPPOSE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM BY TELLING PEOPLE WHO THEY CAN HAVE SEX WITH, YOU OPPRESSIVE CHRISTIAN THEOCRAT!!!

[Constantinopolis]

Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of the modern atheist is whining that Christianity is overly controlling and crying about individual rights, while at the same time insisting that God, if He were truly good, should directly take over the world and establish a totalitarian theocracy so as to eliminate evil. The modern atheist is a spoiled brat, demanding freedom to do whatever he wants, while also throwing a tantrum because his parent does not fix all his problems for him.

And you have the audacity to accuse UMN of focusing on his "first world problems", when atheism is overwhelmingly a phenomenon found among the rich, the privileged, the pampered. Those starving children and their parents are far more likely to believe in God than you ever will be. They understand that a world without God is a world without justice. They understand that it is precisely the existence of God that makes their suffering mean something, that guarantees their lives are not in vain. But you, from the comfort of your first world lives, talk about suffering and death as one talks about war after having played Starcraft. You don't know the first thing about suffering and death.

A lot of the suffering in this world can be fixed, but there is a lot more than we can do nothing about. There are hundreds of millions of people in this world for whom, even in the best of circumstances - even if we abolished capitalism, war, and world hunger - life would still be filled with suffering. Some of them have an incurable chronic medical condition, some of them have childhood trauma that they will never overcome, some of them have seen loved ones die and will never be able to smile again. Atheism has nothing to say to these people, and nothing to give them but despair and darkness. "Life sucks and then you die."

That is why atheism is the religion of the rich and privileged. Because only the rich and privileged can endure to look at this rotten world and say "yup, this is all there is, and I'm fine with that."

[Conserative Morality]

TL;DR - Things I have learned from the atheists in this thread:

1. It would be good to abolish free will, at least to some extent, in order to brainwash people into never wanting to do evil stuff.

2. If a god or godlike entity existed, it would be good for this entity to use its power to seize control of the Earth and force people to always be nice to each other. In fact, an entity that had the power to do such a thing but chose not to, is evil.

Let's fight, you and I.

1. There is no such thing as free will. The concept itself is ridiculous.

2. Yes and no. A God that refuses to stop slaughter is at least partially responsible for it.

[The Rich Port]

TL;DR - Things I have learned from the atheists in this thread:

1. It would be good to abolish free will, at least to some extent, in order to brainwash people into never wanting to do evil stuff.

2. If a god or godlike entity existed, it would be good for this entity to use its power to seize control of the Earth and force people to always be nice to each other. In fact, an entity that had the power to do such a thing but chose not to, is evil.

Let's fight, you and I.

1. There is no such thing as free will. The concept itself is ridiculous.

2. Yes and no. A God that refuses to stop slaughter is at least partially responsible for it.

1.) Because prohibiting evil acts is such a terrible thing. Also, because evil people won't be sent to Hell by God after death.

2.) ... Isn't that what happens in Revelations? The Anti-Christ takes over, makes the world all anti-God and shitty and then he brings the Provisional Angel Army in, culminating in all of the Christians finally getting to live in peace... Right next to him, where he always has a bunch of angels blowing fucking horns until the ending of infinity.

[Constantinopolis]

1. There is no such thing as free will. The concept itself is ridiculous.

In that case, why do you oppose laws that restrict individual freedom? Let's have a totalitarian state.

2. Yes and no. A God that refuses to stop slaughter is at least partially responsible for it.

Then I will ask you the same question I asked Threlizdun:

Suppose you could press a button to brainwash all human beings such that they would never think of committing evil in the future. Would you press it? Should you? Do you think it would be a moral imperative to press it, and that you would be a sociopathic monster if you refused to do it? Because that's what you're saying about God.

2.) ... Isn't that what happens in Revelations? The Anti-Christ takes over, makes the world all anti-God and shitty and then he brings the Provisional Angel Army in, culminating in all of the Christians finally getting to live in peace... Right next to him, where he always has a bunch of angels blowing fucking horns until the ending of infinity.

No. That is not what is going to happen, at all. That's a stupid 20th century American Protestant interpretation of Revelations.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

SNIP

Do you object to the police preventing murder? Why can't God be a celestial policeman?

[Conserative Morality]

Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of the modern atheist is whining that Christianity is overly controlling and crying about individual rights, while at the same time insisting that God, if He were truly good, should directly take over the world and establish a totalitarian theocracy so as to eliminate evil. The modern atheist is a spoiled brat, demanding freedom to do whatever he wants, while also throwing a tantrum because his parent does not fix all his problems for him.

Careful there.

And you have the audacity to accuse UMN of focusing on his "first world problems", when atheism is overwhelmingly a phenomenon found among the rich, the privileged, the pampered. Those starving children and their parents are far more likely to believe in God than you ever will be. They understand that a world without God is a world without justice. They understand that it is precisely the existence of God that makes their suffering mean something, that guarantees their lives are not in vain. But you, from the comfort of your first world lives, talk about suffering and death as one talks about war after having played Starcraft. You don't know the first thing about suffering and death.

Those starving children and their parents are more likely to believe in God because those starving children and parents are exposed to fewer alternatives. I seem to remember explicitly atheist Marxist-Leninism being quite popular in the third world countries back in the day.

A lot of the suffering in this world can be fixed, but there is a lot more than we can do nothing about. There are hundreds of millions of people in this world for whom, even in the best of circumstances - even if we abolished capitalism, war, and world hunger - life would still be filled with suffering. Some of them have an incurable chronic medical condition, some of them have childhood trauma that they will never overcome, some of them have seen loved ones die and will never be able to smile again. Atheism has nothing to say to these people, and nothing to give them but despair and darkness. "Life sucks and then you die."

No. Atheism has nothing to give to those people, because atheism itself gives nothing to anyone. Atheism is godlessness. You are looking at an absence. An absence in belief in string theory does not necessitate that the individual has nothing to contribute to physics, but any ideas they have would not come from a belief or lack thereof in string theory.

That is why atheism is the religion of the rich and privileged. Because only the rich and privileged can endure to look at this rotten world and say "yup, this is all there is, and I'm fine with that."

Not really. The religion of the rich and privileged is wealth and privilege. Atheism crosses borders and classes, same as religion. Religious orthodoxy, on the other hand, is the domain of the privileged. Syncretism is far more common in the underprivileged and poor, because how can one justify the horrors of the world as all ultimately springing from one source?

[The Rich Port]

1. There is no such thing as free will. The concept itself is ridiculous.

In that case, why do you oppose laws that restrict individual freedom? Let's have a totalitarian state.

2. Yes and no. A God that refuses to stop slaughter is at least partially responsible for it.

Then I will ask you the same question I asked Threlizdun:

Suppose you could press a button to brainwash all human beings such that they would never think of committing evil in the future. Would you press it? Should you? Do you think it would be a moral imperative to press it, and that you would be a sociopathic monster if you refused to do it? Because that's what you're saying about God.

2.) ... Isn't that what happens in Revelations? The Anti-Christ takes over, makes the world all anti-God and shitty and then he brings the Provisional Angel Army in, culminating in all of the Christians finally getting to live in peace... Right next to him, where he always has a bunch of angels blowing fucking horns until the ending of infinity.

No. That is not what is going to happen, at all. That's a stupid 20th century American Protestant interpretation of Revelations.

... It's also the stupid Catholic version, then.

And the version of a lot of other Christians. They all stupid too?

Also, the world ends. Big fucking whoop. Why does it have to end? Because God said so?

Hasa Diga Eebowai.