Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Australian rePublic]

I'm not blaming any victim of cancer. What I'm saying is is that God knows how to do His job, but let's roll with your misinterpretation of what I wrote here.

Yes, you literally are. Absolutely and explicitly. If you're blaming the existence of suffering on anybody but your god, and still claiming the existence of that god, you absolutely are victim-blaming.

If you were God, would you kill baby Hitler, knowing that He would grow up and cause the holocaust?

This, this right here? Also victim blaming. Note how you're implying that every child who dies of cancer would otherwise have grown up to do something evil.

And no, no I wouldn't. Because, not being unimaginably stupid, I wouldn't have let the situation get to that point in the first place: I'd either set up the universe such that such things never occurred, or I'd simply tweak which sperm managed to fertilize his mother's egg to fix the problem. Any entity that doesn't do this, apart from being irredeemably evil, is also monumentally stupid, and so is not any kind of god.

I never said it was that the baby was going to grow up evil. Sure, that might be one reason, but it wouldn't be the only reason. (And even then, it would probably be for the vast minority of babies) Maybe God thinks the child will be too weak to handle life, maybe God knows that the innocent baby will be the victim of a tragedy that God wishes to prevent, maybe... any number of things could fall into this catagory.

[Valrifell]

Yes, you literally are. Absolutely and explicitly. If you're blaming the existence of suffering on anybody but your god, and still claiming the existence of that god, you absolutely are victim-blaming.



This, this right here? Also victim blaming. Note how you're implying that every child who dies of cancer would otherwise have grown up to do something evil.

And no, no I wouldn't. Because, not being unimaginably stupid, I wouldn't have let the situation get to that point in the first place: I'd either set up the universe such that such things never occurred, or I'd simply tweak which sperm managed to fertilize his mother's egg to fix the problem. Any entity that doesn't do this, apart from being irredeemably evil, is also monumentally stupid, and so is not any kind of god.

I never said it was that the baby was going to grow up evil. Sure, that might be one reason, but it wouldn't be the only reason. (And even then, it would probably be for the vast minority of babies) Maybe God thinks the child will be too weak to handle life, maybe God knows that the innocent baby will be the victim of a tragedy that God wishes to prevent, maybe... any number of things could fall into this catagory.

So God seeks to prevent a child from experiencing a great tragedy... by giving them cancer? A tragedy in and of itself?

[The New California Republic]

I never said it was that the baby was going to grow up evil. Sure, that might be one reason, but it wouldn't be the only reason. (And even then, it would probably be for the vast minority of babies) Maybe God thinks the child will be too weak to handle life, maybe God knows that the innocent baby will be the victim of a tragedy that God wishes to prevent, maybe... any number of things could fall into this catagory.

That excuse really doesn't wash. There are countless suffering people throughout history that God should have seen fit to kill before they suffered later in life, but didn't. Why? Sounds like complete nonsense to me.

[Salandriagado]

Yes, you literally are. Absolutely and explicitly. If you're blaming the existence of suffering on anybody but your god, and still claiming the existence of that god, you absolutely are victim-blaming.



This, this right here? Also victim blaming. Note how you're implying that every child who dies of cancer would otherwise have grown up to do something evil.

And no, no I wouldn't. Because, not being unimaginably stupid, I wouldn't have let the situation get to that point in the first place: I'd either set up the universe such that such things never occurred, or I'd simply tweak which sperm managed to fertilize his mother's egg to fix the problem. Any entity that doesn't do this, apart from being irredeemably evil, is also monumentally stupid, and so is not any kind of god.

I never said it was that the baby was going to grow up evil. Sure, that might be one reason, but it wouldn't be the only reason. (And even then, it would probably be for the vast minority of babies) Maybe God thinks the child will be too weak to handle life,

More victim blaming. More to the point, if god's going around killing babies who would grow up to be evil, why the fuck didn't he do it to Hitler?

maybe God knows that the innocent baby will be the victim of a tragedy that God wishes to prevent, maybe... any number of things could fall into this catagory.

"Kill them to avoid them being killed later" is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[Australian rePublic]

I never said it was that the baby was going to grow up evil. Sure, that might be one reason, but it wouldn't be the only reason. (And even then, it would probably be for the vast minority of babies) Maybe God thinks the child will be too weak to handle life, maybe God knows that the innocent baby will be the victim of a tragedy that God wishes to prevent, maybe... any number of things could fall into this catagory.

That excuse really doesn't wash. There are countless suffering people throughout history that God should have seen fit to kill before they suffered later in life, but didn't. Why?

I don't know. Ask Him

[Valrifell]

That excuse really doesn't wash. There are countless suffering people throughout history that God should have seen fit to kill before they suffered later in life, but didn't. Why?

I don't know. Ask Him

I did, he didn't respond. Hence the atheism.

[Australian rePublic]

God does not mix metaphors. I can't believe how many times I have to repeat this, but once again, God did NOT write the Bible. The Bible was written by humans, in human language of the humans who lived in that era. Humans wrote the Bible, and humans are NOT infallible

So why didn't god didn't ensure his message was set down perfectly?

Because He didn't send it down. He interacted with people and those people wrote down what their interactions felt like to them

[Neutraligon]

So why didn't god didn't ensure his message was set down perfectly?

Because He didn't send it down. He interacted with people and those people wrote down what their interactions felt like to them

So why didn't god send it down?

[Australian rePublic]

Because He didn't send it down. He interacted with people and those people wrote down what their interactions felt like to them

So why didn't god send it down?

I don't know. Ask Him...

[The New California Republic]

That excuse really doesn't wash. There are countless suffering people throughout history that God should have seen fit to kill before they suffered later in life, but didn't. Why? Sounds like complete nonsense to me.

I don't know. Ask Him

Tried.

Silence...

[Neutraligon]

So why didn't god send it down?

I don't know. Ask Him...

Let me add additional things, since you think the bible is inaccurate at best, why do you believe in any part of it, Why are you a Christian?

[Australian rePublic]

I don't know. Ask Him...

Let me add additional things, since you think the bible is inaccurate at best, why do you believe in any part of it, Why are you a Christian?

I do NOT think it's inaccurate. I never said it was innaccurate. What I said was is that it's difficult to translate it properly

[Ifreann]

I never said it was that the baby was going to grow up evil. Sure, that might be one reason, but it wouldn't be the only reason. (And even then, it would probably be for the vast minority of babies) Maybe God thinks the child will be too weak to handle life, maybe God knows that the innocent baby will be the victim of a tragedy that God wishes to prevent, maybe... any number of things could fall into this catagory.

So God seeks to prevent a child from experiencing a great tragedy... by giving them cancer? A tragedy in and of itself?

I had to burn the village down to keep it from burning down.

[Neutraligon]

Let me add additional things, since you think the bible is inaccurate at best, why do you believe in any part of it, Why are you a Christian?

I do NOT think it's inaccurate. I never said it was innaccurate. What I said was is that it's difficult to translate it properly

So why do you even say it?

Besides, the idea of God just straight-out mixing metaphor with face value and covering it in ahistorical data seems fishy.

God does not mix metaphors. I can't believe how many times I have to repeat this, but once again, God did NOT write the Bible. The Bible was written by humans, in human language of the humans who lived in that era. Humans wrote the Bible, and humans are NOT infallible

This says nothing about translation, it talks about being written in human languages based on how people where perceiving god. And the fact that humans are not infallible is an indirect way of saying that they could have written something wrong.

[Frievolk]

So God seeks to prevent a child from experiencing a great tragedy... by giving them cancer? A tragedy in and of itself?

I had to burn the village down to keep it from burning down.

In order to make sure someone in that village wouldn't burn down the village, I burned the place he lived in down: The Village.

[Dogmeat]

I had to burn the village down to keep it from burning down.

In order to make sure someone in that village wouldn't burn down the village, I burned the place he lived in down: The Village.

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it."

[Australian rePublic]

I do NOT think it's inaccurate. I never said it was innaccurate. What I said was is that it's difficult to translate it properly

God does not mix metaphors. I can't believe how many times I have to repeat this, but once again, God did NOT write the Bible. The Bible was written by humans, in human language of the humans who lived in that era. Humans wrote the Bible, and humans are NOT infallible

This says nothing about translation, it talks about being written in human languages based on how people where perceiving god. And the fact that humans are not infallible is an indirect way of saying that they could have written something wrong.

No, what I originally said was that reading the Bible in English is not the same as reading it in Ancient Greek/Hebrew, as the meaning of expressions/metaphors is lost in translation, causing us to interpret metaphors literally. That's what I said

[Australian rePublic]

I do NOT think it's inaccurate. I never said it was innaccurate. What I said was is that it's difficult to translate it properly

God does not mix metaphors. I can't believe how many times I have to repeat this, but once again, God did NOT write the Bible. The Bible was written by humans, in human language of the humans who lived in that era. Humans wrote the Bible, and humans are NOT infallible

This says nothing about translation, it talks about being written in human languages based on how people where perceiving god. And the fact that humans are not infallible is an indirect way of saying that they could have written something wrong.

Are there any errors in the Bible? Probably, but if there are, they would be tiny and irrelevant

[Thermodolia]

Yes, you literally are. Absolutely and explicitly. If you're blaming the existence of suffering on anybody but your god, and still claiming the existence of that god, you absolutely are victim-blaming.



This, this right here? Also victim blaming. Note how you're implying that every child who dies of cancer would otherwise have grown up to do something evil.

And no, no I wouldn't. Because, not being unimaginably stupid, I wouldn't have let the situation get to that point in the first place: I'd either set up the universe such that such things never occurred, or I'd simply tweak which sperm managed to fertilize his mother's egg to fix the problem. Any entity that doesn't do this, apart from being irredeemably evil, is also monumentally stupid, and so is not any kind of god.

I never said it was that the baby was going to grow up evil. Sure, that might be one reason, but it wouldn't be the only reason. (And even then, it would probably be for the vast minority of babies) Maybe God thinks the child will be too weak to handle life, maybe God knows that the innocent baby will be the victim of a tragedy that God wishes to prevent, maybe... any number of things could fall into this catagory.

Or maybe god doesn’t give a shit

[The New California Republic]

Are there any errors in the Bible? Probably, but if there are, they would be tiny and irrelevant

Some of the errors are significant and glaring.

[Australian rePublic]

Are there any errors in the Bible? Probably, but if there are, they would be tiny and irrelevant

Some of the errors are significant and glaring.

Some of these contardict themsleves

[Ifreann]

Some of the errors are significant and glaring.

Some of these contardict themsleves

Are there any error in the Skeptics Annotated Bible? Probably, but if there are, they would be tiny and irrelevant.

[The New California Republic]

Some of the errors are significant and glaring.

Some of these contardict themsleves

Do they indeed?

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Yes, you literally are. Absolutely and explicitly. If you're blaming the existence of suffering on anybody but your god, and still claiming the existence of that god, you absolutely are victim-blaming.



This, this right here? Also victim blaming. Note how you're implying that every child who dies of cancer would otherwise have grown up to do something evil.

And no, no I wouldn't. Because, not being unimaginably stupid, I wouldn't have let the situation get to that point in the first place: I'd either set up the universe such that such things never occurred, or I'd simply tweak which sperm managed to fertilize his mother's egg to fix the problem. Any entity that doesn't do this, apart from being irredeemably evil, is also monumentally stupid, and so is not any kind of god.

I never said it was that the baby was going to grow up evil. Sure, that might be one reason, but it wouldn't be the only reason. (And even then, it would probably be for the vast minority of babies) Maybe God thinks the child will be too weak to handle life, maybe God knows that the innocent baby will be the victim of a tragedy that God wishes to prevent, maybe... any number of things could fall into this catagory.

If he was really omnipotent, he could just stop the tragedy and make every human being infinitely happy, remove everything evil and create heaven on Earth. There would be no need for suffering, death, or even being careful. Decadent, yes, but good nonetheless. There's literally one solution that doesn't require you to remove your belief of this magic man: antitheism, or rather, the acknowledgement that he is not benevolent. Although it could be argued that the definition of an omnipotent being makes its existence impossible, and more importantly, why would it allow people not to believe it? By that I mean give people the very possibility of not believing it.

[Normund]

I never said it was that the baby was going to grow up evil. Sure, that might be one reason, but it wouldn't be the only reason. (And even then, it would probably be for the vast minority of babies) Maybe God thinks the child will be too weak to handle life, maybe God knows that the innocent baby will be the victim of a tragedy that God wishes to prevent, maybe... any number of things could fall into this catagory.

If he was really omnipotent, he could just stop the tragedy and make every human being infinitely happy, remove everything evil and create heaven on Earth. There would be no need for suffering, death, or even being careful. Decadent, yes, but good nonetheless. There's literally one solution that doesn't require you to remove your belief of this magic man: antitheism, or rather, the acknowledgement that he is not benevolent. Although it could be argued that the definition of an omnipotent being makes its existence impossible, and more importantly, why would it allow people not to believe it? By that I mean give people the very possibility of not believing it.

Actually, "antitheism" just means one is opposed to religion as a whole - real or not. What you’re thinking of is "misotheism", which is literally hated of a deity.