Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Graknorke]

What you're doing is the same thing some people do when talking about life, which is an inaccurate representation. You're setting yourself a specific endpoint and then saying you're unlikely to get there. It would be a better parallel to say that while you may not paint a perfect replica of the Sistine Chapel's ceiling, you're still going to eventually paint the entire roof in some way.

[Loud Whispers]

The existence of life on our planet isn't all that magical. A crack in a concrete road allowing a sapling to grow is hardly evidence of a purpose. The origins of the sapling or the road? Much more interesting, for all pursuits of knowledge to seek.

[Knight of Fools]

Let me rephrase myself, then:

The chances of life on this planet are vastly improved if divine intervention were involved.

I'm not saying there's a One True Way, or folks that believe one way or another are wrong or stupid. I was just trying to point out that the "I'm superior because I believe differently than other people" is kind of a silly way to go about, regardless of what your beliefs are. We've run into this issue before in this thread, and it's irritating when the thread is supposed to be about genuinely stupid things, not criticizing others' ideologies.


And I don't want to start an OT argument here. If we really want to discuss it, we should probably bring it elsewhere.

[Mr. Palau]

Well, the chances of life on any planet would always be improved with divine intervention. If the chance was not 100% in the first place, God's intervention would up the odds of life succeeding to 100%, because he is God and thus could not fail.  On a coin flip the odds of heads coming up is 50%, unless god intervenes in which case it would be 100%.

[Shakerag]

Let me rephrase myself, then:

The chances of life on this planet are vastly improved if divine intervention were involved.

If you assume that there is such a thing as a "divine" entity which has a power to cause a "divine intervention" and this specific planet was choosen as a location for said event, sure. 

I can also say that the chances that I will ride a unicorn in the near future will be vastly improved if unicorns fucking existed.

Well, the chances of life on any planet would always be improved with divine intervention. If the chance was not 100% in the first place, God's intervention would up the odds of life succeeding to 100%, because he is God and thus could not fail.  On a coin flip the odds of heads coming up is 50%, unless god intervenes in which case it would be 100%.

You damn ninja!  >_<

Also, why does everyone assume some godly intervention will always be positive? 

[Knight of Fools]

We've run into this issue before in this thread, and it's irritating when the thread is supposed to be about genuinely stupid things, not criticizing others' ideologies.

... I don't want to start an OT argument here. If we really want to discuss it, we should probably bring it elsewhere.

[tahujdt]

The existence of life on our planet isn't all that magical. A crack in a concrete road allowing a sapling to grow is hardly evidence of a purpose. The origins of the sapling or the road? Much more interesting, for all pursuits of knowledge to seek.

Whether you believe in divine creation or not, the universe is still an amazing place.

Spoiler: Not really relevant, but still funny (click to show/hide)

[Friend] (translated from inaccurate ramblings) the Big Bang never happened!
[Me]And why not?
[Friend] Because God created the world!
[Me] All scientific evidence for the Big Bang aside, there is no reason why God couldn't create the universe with the Big Bang. If I were able to, I would definitely create everything I do with explosions.

I did get into an argument about carbon dating with a guy on the SWC IRC channel. I found it ironic that a Christian(me) was defending an atheist(another guy) from another Christian(him). And then we argued about the differences between a 'creationist' and a 'young-Earth creationist' for awhile. It provided great entertainment for everyone else.

[Criptfeind]

Also, why does everyone assume some godly intervention will always be positive? 

Isn't that pretty much like... The idea of a god? If it was not a positive thing we would be calling it a demon or a devil or even a spirit.

We've run into this issue before in this thread, and it's irritating when the thread is supposed to be about genuinely stupid things, not criticizing others' ideologies.

... I don't want to start an OT argument here. If we really want to discuss it, we should probably bring it elsewhere.

Saying you don't want to argue, in the same post as you made a argument, is really weak.

It's seriously like, a pet peeve of mine even. People who do that.

It's pretty clear it's not like people who do that actually think the argument should end in a agree to disagree scenario. Or that they don't care anymore. It means they ether don't have confidence in their viewpoint enough for it to stand up to anything or more likely that they simply want the last word.

It's weak as hell and annoying as fuck. It always takes two to tango and if you want a argument to stop you just simply don't post at all!

Anyway, as for the actual thing itself. No, that's not a belief. It's not a philosophy. It's not a idea. It's just a stupid fallacy and it totally deserves to be in this thread.

[ggamer]

----

I know that feel, bro. As an old earth christian I sort of get lumped in with other christians.

[Scoops Novel]

No argument intended, but how are churches (not necessarily just Christianity, if you have something to share) coping with their declining numbers from what you can tell?

[tahujdt]

No argument intended, but how are churches (not necessarily just Christianity, if you have something to share) coping with their declining numbers from what you can tell?

My church actually sees it as a good thing, inasmuch as it means that people are more likely to come of their own free will.

[Shakerag]

Also, why does everyone assume some godly intervention will always be positive? 

Isn't that pretty much like... The idea of a god? If it was not a positive thing we would be calling it a demon or a devil or even a spirit.

So are you basically saying a "demon or a devil or even a spirit" are terms for an evil god? 

I'm just saying that everyone who assumes there's some higher power out there automatically defines it as benevolent.  What if the evils of the world aren't being caused by some manner of devil (as a counterpoint to a "good" god), but rather an unchecked diety that enjoys suffering? 

[tahujdt]

Also, why does everyone assume some godly intervention will always be positive? 

Isn't that pretty much like... The idea of a god? If it was not a positive thing we would be calling it a demon or a devil or even a spirit.

So are you basically saying a "demon or a devil or even a spirit" are terms for an evil god? 

I'm just saying that everyone who assumes there's some higher power out there automatically defines it as benevolent.  What if the evils of the world aren't being caused by some manner of devil (as a counterpoint to a "good" god), but rather an unchecked diety that enjoys suffering?

Then we are, quite frankly, fucked.

[Criptfeind]

So are you basically saying a "demon or a devil or even a spirit" are terms for an evil god? 

Yeah, sorta. I think what I mean most of all is that the idea of a evil god is not as attractive as the idea of a good god. Therefor, the main god should be good. And then sub gods, even ones as powerful as the main god can be bad, but they won't be called gods.

What if the evils of the world aren't being caused by some manner of devil (as a counterpoint to a "good" god), but rather an unchecked diety that enjoys suffering? 

Well. What about it? I am sure people out there do believe that. I was just saying that normally we wouldn't call them a god.

If you are asking why it's not a super popular fantasy like the idea of a benevolent god, I would assume that is because for most people the narrative "God loves you" seems to be, over time at least, stronger then the narrative "God hates you" or "God doesn't care about". So in the long run one is easier to believe. Or at least, that is the case in the modern world. Where we no longer need anything from god then assurance and self worth.

[Scoops Novel]

I think that's one of the failures, from a pragmatic self-interested standpoint, of Christianity. There's not much in the way of story that can be used without a lot of awkward questions, and i suspect reading's Beowulf or the knights of the round table are rather rare.Omnipresent good god of vagueness with the smite removed isn't a grabbing idea.