![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 31 to 55 of 57. Go back in thread:
Posted by 10derHeart on May 20, 2006, at 10:31:29
In reply to Please be Estella » Estella, posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 8:56:46
I don't think that warrants an apology.
I don't think you asked Estella to be civil in a way that would be uncivil here. Although, perhaps because of the smiley, I thought you were probably joking and/or being a bit sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek...something...I don't know...I just couldn't tell. Limitations of the medium...
But anyway....thanks, even if you did say 'sorry' for posting that, 'cause I felt put down by the post. I want Estella to be Estella, too, but ther are limits, at Babble anyway.....
Well, at least now I know my beliefs may be seen as incoherant by others. Guess that'll have to be okay. I can live with that.
Posted by zazenduck on May 20, 2006, at 19:09:28
In reply to Re: Please be Estella » zazenduck, posted by 10derHeart on May 20, 2006, at 10:31:29
> I don't think that warrants an apology.
>
> I don't think you asked Estella to be civil in a way that would be uncivil here. Although, perhaps because of the smiley, I thought you were probably joking and/or being a bit sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek...something...I don't know...I just couldn't tell. Limitations of the medium...
>The smiley was a no hard feelings kind of smiley:)
I just would have rephrased myself and said I think this violates the civility rules rather than saying please be civil. I've just always thought the Please be civil seemed like a judgement on the poster rather than the post. And I didn't want Estella to be blocked again. So I guess it was sympathy too. Sometimes if someone else says something before Bob arrives he lets it go it seems like. Or the person says sorry and rephrases and it's resolved.
> But anyway....thanks, even if you did say 'sorry' for posting that, 'cause I felt put down by the post. I want Estella to be Estella, too, but ther are limits, at Babble anyway.....
>
Well I obviously don't agree with her and I'm sorry you felt bad when you read it. Thanks for saying thanks :)
Posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 21:09:58
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Estella, posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2006, at 9:42:23
> > i like to think the world would be a better place without religion...
>
> Keeping in mind that the idea here is to respect the views of others and to be sensitive to their feelings, could you please rephrase that?
Keeping in mind that estelle too has the right to a view which others should respect.Not withstanding the above, her point could be very solidly argued from a purely factual and logical standpoint.
TJ
Posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 21:43:50
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 21:09:58
I happen not to agree with Estella's point of view, but it beats me how anyone could find it hurtful. I don't agree with it because I think we are dangerous primates who need religion to keep us in line. We can't expect too much of ourselves and religion is quite good enough.
UNLESS, we are really talking about national differences here and by religion is understood fundamentalist religion, naturally including US fundamentalist religion. I've no idea why people feel put down and would be the worst person to ask since I've never got on with them. But if it is important for people to be liked and they feel they aren't, this might be a point of sensitivity. For the record I have no religious opinions worth mentioning.....mine are purely aesthetic.
Posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 21:54:27
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » teejay, posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 21:43:50
> I don't agree with it because I think we are dangerous primates who need religion to keep us in line.
I think you are confusing two issues here. Almost all religions broadly contain the same moral guidlines and those I'm fully in favour of; its the God issues and the way this 'supreme being' supposedly should be worshiped which creates much of the angst around the world.
My personal opinion is that often religion is merely an excuse to hide behind and the real reason wars are fought is to do with power, money or land.
TJ (who was brought up VERY religious but is now an atheist)
Posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 22:29:34
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Declan, posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 21:54:27
TJ, you are staying up very late again. Humans? What can you do with them? I *suppose* I'm an atheist. But like that curved universe thing?.......I always want to ask what is beyond the wall. If the universe doesn't just go on forever it must have a boundary, right? I'm so confused, and my knowledge of quantum mechaics comes from talking to my 18yo son, but it seems to me that science and religion are not that much different, especially with church services the way they are these days.
Declan
Posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 23:36:28
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » teejay, posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 22:29:34
Hiya Declan.....
yeah i'm pretty much always up late, I'm not good at mornings but good at late nights.
I see where you are coming from regarding the curved universe, but the human mind cannot grasp infinity. Time will go on long after you and I are 'worm food' but the concept that the world was here millions of years before you and I were born or will be here millions of years after we are dead is hard to grasp, but its a fact all the same.
Not quite sure how the concept of time tallies with how we actually got here though.
Do you know what convinced me that God didnt exist? Well if God made the heavens, the earth and us, then how come the earth would arguably be better off without us if we were his last (and hence finest) creation? Doesnt make sense does it?
nite declan
TJ
Posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 0:36:20
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » Estella, posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 7:09:17
> > i like to think the world would be a better place without religion...
> .Please be civil.
my preference...
would be that if people do feel offended... to say something like 'i felt a little offended (or a lot offended) when you said xxx'.
if you weren't offended, but think others might be then you could say 'i'm concerned others might feel offended if they were to read you saying xxx'.see...
that gives people the chance to put things right.
while 'please be civil' primes them for a blocking...regarding the rephrase...
yeah i was stating my opinion. i wasn't knocking religion. i wasn't making a statement about religion being *bad* I was making a statement about how I think the world could be better... (I thought it was a positive statement... i thought it would be okay). but i didn't really mean to say 'i like to think the world would be a better place without religion' because i don't really like to think it it is more that i think the world would be a better place without religion.
what do i mean by religion?
i mean established religion as opposed to personal spirituality.
and it is what i believe.
i'm sure christians believe the world would be a better place if everyone were christian and the muslims believe the world would be a better place if everyone were muslim etc.is it uncivil to say so?
i don't really see how...
if people disagree i am up for a discussion (i think that would be interesting which is why i said what i did)i believe the world would be a better place if people appealed to natural rather than supernatural explanations.
i believe the world would be a better place if people appreciated that morality and values are seperable from established religion in the sense that you can have either one without the other and having one doesn't make it more probable that you will have the other.
i believe the world would be a better place if people appreciated that there are other reasons for acting morally in accordance with values than 'god will reward us in the next life' or 'god will punish us in the next life' or 'because god said we should / shouldn't'.maybe the trouble is in trying to differentiate between religion and culture? i think the world profits from cultural diversity it is just the established religious movements that i'm not sure profit the world particularly... but that is just my opinion of course and i'm sure the majority of the world doesn't agree with me...
> I think political correctness is something like not ever saying anything that could possibly offend anyone anywhere.oh. are people campaigning for that sense of political correctness?
> Kinky's proposal was for voluntary prayer.:-)
beats involountary prayer IMO> I would not want my children to read some of Kinky's lyrics. I would not want my governor to use that kind of language. I don't think that's political correctness. I think it's common decency. I don't know exactly what the difference is.
ah. some people don't think there is a difference...
i guess there may be a difference between lyrics / language in one setting...
and lyrics / language in another.
i can swear with the best of them...
but not in front of children
not at work
there is such a thing as appropriateness...
but yeah i think i hear what you are saying...
Posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 0:53:02
In reply to Re: Please be Estella » zazenduck, posted by 10derHeart on May 20, 2006, at 10:31:29
> 'cause I felt put down by the post.
i'm sorry you felt put down by my post.
i didn't mean for you to feel that way.> ther are limits, at Babble anyway.....
i'm not sure how that hit up against the limits...
having a little trouble here...
> Well, at least now I know my beliefs may be seen as incoherant by others. Guess that'll have to be okay. I can live with that.incoherance is a formal property.
that is the way i see it yes.
though when pushed i'll back down to agnosticism
- that should clue you in that it is very arguable indeed whether the formal property of incoherance is there or not ;-)the argument for incoherance is also known as the problem from evil. i'll reconstruct...
1) God is all powerful (can do anything)
2) God is all loving / kind / good / benevolent.
(you grant those by definition)
3) There are instances of evil.
That shouldn't be controversial for those inclined to christianity. For those not inclined to christianity I might need to argue for this a little. Some of my favourite examples:
NATURAL EVIL - We can haggle over whether these count as 'evil' but just consider some destructive acts of nature. Consider the Tsunami. Consider whatever natural disaster you like.
MORAL EVIL - Murder, rape, etc etc.
Those things happen and those are the things I mean by 'evil'.Now in the face of those things...
EITHER god chooses not to prevent them (so he is not all loving, kind, good).
OR god cannot prevent them (so he is not all powerful).So the notion is you must either limit gods power or his goodness for the notion to be coherant.
The problem of evil (which I prefer to consider an argument for incoherance) has been around for centuries... As such there have been a number of defensed (known as theodicies) trying to render the concept of god coherant in the face of the existence of natural and moral evil. i'll try a couple...
THE FREE WILL THEODICY
1) Free will is a great good indeed and so cost benefit analysis shows that we are better off with free will even though some people use their free will to do evil.
My response is - surely the existence of natural evil doesn't depend on human free will. Regarding moral evil either god COULD NOT give us free will but restrict the range of it to harming oneself or god CHOSE NOT to. This once again entails that either he is not 1 or he is not 2 or both.
THE CHARACTER BUILDING THEODICY
Natural and moral evil is necessary for us to build character.
My response is EITHER god could not make it such that we didn't need to suffer evil to build character OR he chose not to make it such.
Hence he is not 1 or he is not 2 or both.
But this has been debated for centuries.
Please don't take it personally that I think that concept of god is incoherant...
Apparantly general relativity and quantum mechanics are similarly incoherant when you put them side by side...
Posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 1:04:41
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 21:09:58
> Keeping in mind that estelle too has the right to a view which others should respect.thanks tj
Posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 1:12:03
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » teejay, posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 21:43:50
> I happen not to agree with Estella's point of view,
good :-)
> but it beats me how anyone could find it hurtful.
yeah beats me too... don't get me wrong i'm sorry when people feel hurt in response to my posts i didn't mean to hurt anyone by my comment... but i guess i am having a little trouble seeing why people find it hurtful...
> I don't agree with it because I think we are dangerous primates who need religion to keep us in line.
ah...
there was this fear that without religion people would disintigrate back to a life where things are 'nasty brutish and short' because there would be no incentive for morality without the threat / incentive of punishment / reward from a creator god...
but that has simply turned out not to be the case...
athiests manage to conduct themselves about as well as people from a variety of religions with respect to contracts and promises and so on and so forth... at least... to the best of my knowledge. i don't see any correlation between membership of an established religion and empecable moral behaviour.
i've just started reading this book "Passions Within Reasons: The Strategic Role of the Emotions". It is great :-) Has been fairly influential. He talks about the evolution of cooperative behaviour and about how emotions are important for moral behaviour and about how moral behaviour... if that which promotes cooperation. because basically... we do a lot better by cooperating than we would do on our own... and so evolution can select for altruism. i can't hope to summarise at this point. but i reccomend having a look...
Posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 1:28:16
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Declan, posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 1:12:03
an amazon review:Dennett's take on religion will seem polemical to some, but it's very nearly the opposite. Rather, it posits that Religion, as a sub-realm of anthropology, can be viewed as a natural phenomenon -- rather like language, custom, emotion, espression, etc. -- and as such should not be off-limits to the methods of science. He takes issue with Gould's "magisteria", in which Science illuminates the inert and Religion the 'transcendent' (or whatever it's supposed to do that Science cannot). In some sense, his analysis is very much in line with the evolutionary psychology movement, wherein the Mind is viewed as the product of evolution and human activity a product of the Mind. It's a materialist view, but, as Dennett painstakingly shows, It Works for an enormous variety of phenomena; why, of all artifacts and actions, should human religious practice be shrouded from the light of scientific inquiry?
The central thesis of Dennett's book is *not* some warmed-over pastiche about how religion improves our fitness -- a point he makes with pinpoint clarity and that many commentators on evolution (and his book specifically) managed to miss. In a recent talk, he asked the simple question "how does the common cold improve our fitness?" The answer is simple: it doesn't. Rather, for IT to survive, it needs a fresh set of susceptible hosts; all that matters is that it increases its *own* fitness and reproductive success. We are a vessel for its transmission, and that is all we are, from its perspective.
"Dennett's Dangerous Idea" suggests that religion, suitably defined (and this is a difficult issue to which much of the book is devoted) spreads not because it makes us stronger, faster or more cohesive -- its track record on the last is clearly mixed -- but because it hijacks us for its own propagation. This idea is subtle, akin to Dawkins' memes. Dennett backs it up in spades, and you'll simply have to read the book to take in his bravura performance. Which you should. It's terrific: sprawling yet closely argued, entertaining, brimming with 'the telling detail' and writerly vim.
He is controversial...
But he does get one thinking (if only to disagree).
He has turned to 'popular philosophy' rather (hence philosophers increasingly turn up their nose) but he has done so much serious work too that he can get away with it ;-)
Posted by Declan on May 21, 2006, at 2:35:40
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Declan, posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 1:12:03
It is no doubt true that atheists are as good as anyone else; they could well be better. In the transition from a religiously based society to a different one, the habits of thought associated with religion can be grafted onto belief systems without the kinds of safeguards religion normally offers. I see Nazism and Marxism-Leninism in that light. No doubt there have been others. So my fear relates to change, more than any particular ideal. Things can always get worse.
Declan
Posted by Declan on May 21, 2006, at 3:08:50
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 1:28:16
Now you're talking. Not just religion either. The whole planet drumming up business. I don't know about the long withdrawing roar thing. It depends on your time frame. If we're talking of 500 years, yes. But the last 30 must give us pause. It depends on how it all pans out. Imagine a clash of religions and civilizations over oil....like way worse than now.
Posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 4:51:33
In reply to The Long Withdrawing Roar » Estella, posted by Declan on May 21, 2006, at 2:35:40
> In the transition from a religiously based society to a different one, the habits of thought associated with religion can be grafted onto belief systems without the kinds of safeguards religion normally offers.
Ah. Sure.
There is good thinking and bad thinking from within religion and from without...
What 'safeguards' does religion offer?Could this be met in alternative ways (laws and social norms)?
I guess what I struggle with when it comes to established religion... Is that some people take religion to be beyond science and beyond critique. But critique is an important tool for keeping checks and safeguards in place. And science... Well I'd sooner trust a scientist telling me the flight was going to go okay than someone who said god told them so...
I guess another thing that is hard...
Is history of opression.
People were killed because the church disagreed.
Everything revolves around the earth (including the sun). Apparantly that was biblical. To say otherwise was to put your life in danger.
The church set the research agenda for a number of years...Medieval philosophers worried about such things as 'how many angels can fit on the head of a pin' where the debate was around whether there was any limit (do angels take up space or not)?
Witch burnings...
But you can similarly look to the history of science (medicine and psychiatry and psychology in particular) for some fairly horrific things...
Maybe it is about mystery...
I don't know.
But I feel frightened when established religion has a lot of power / sets the agenda.
Because people tend not to question religion. Because religion is thought to be beyond question 'what can we mere mortals hope to understand about the mysterious ways of god' and so forth.
justifying values aside from religion...
so many interpretations of the bible are possible.
for example...
there is something in the new testament about men (presumably women too) not judging each other. god is supposed to be the judge of man.
(how does that fit with capital punishment)
there is also stuff about turning the other cheek.
(how does that fit with capital punishment. or war)
one can argue most anything from the bible.
so how much does that help?
ones interpretation of the bible...
how about justifying that?or how about just articulating values etc without reference to religion.
i'm not sure what religion buys you...
not sure at all...
Posted by Declan on May 21, 2006, at 15:50:20
In reply to Re: The Long Withdrawing Roar » Declan, posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 4:51:33
I think religion compares well with politics historically. The witchburnings, after all, are not from the medieval period when the church wa in control, but from the early modern period, right at the end really of the Church's power.
Safeguards? Not believing that the end justifies the means, or at least no elevating that to a virtue. I have been particularly influenced by Nadezhda Mandelstam's "Hope against Hope" and "Hope Abandoned", written about the Stalinist terror.What else? Thou shalt not kill (as opposed to 'do no murder'...that's how I learned it). It's not something I obey, eating meat, but I think it's great. A religious sensibility. The church is a human organization and therefore..... If you want to look at vile acts committed in the name of religion think of that minister of religion who stood outside Mathew Shephard's funeral (or burial, I guess) with 2 signs 'God hates f*gs' and 'Mathew Shephard is rotting in hell'. What do you think of Graham Greene's comment about Stalin? 'One bad pope doesn't mean the church is bad' or something. That's taking a pretty long view, way too long for me. Could he have been thinking back to the slave revolts in the Roman Empire?
The interesting thing is how the pretty esoteric teachings of Jesus can be pressed into the service of so many unlikely forces. You know....he believed in the free market and would have made a great sportsman.
Declan
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2006, at 16:25:57
In reply to Re: rephrase, posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 0:36:20
> i think the world would be a better place without religion.
> i believe the world would be a better place if people appealed to natural rather than supernatural explanations.
Sorry, but the idea here is to respect the views of others and to be sensitive to their feelings, so I'm going to block you for 4 weeks. But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceOne possibility is to ask another poster to be your "civility buddy" and preview posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: I'm trying out a new system:
previous block: 2 weeks
period of time since previous block: 4 weeks
particularly uncivil to other posters: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 4 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 0 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 2 - 0 = 2 weeks. And if we double that, that's 4 weeks.
Posted by Sobriquet Style on May 21, 2006, at 17:59:06
In reply to Re: The Long Withdrawing Roar » Declan, posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 4:51:33
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2006, at 22:00:44
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » Estella, posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2006, at 16:25:57
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.
Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060412/msgs/646675.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by zazenduck on May 22, 2006, at 8:23:17
In reply to WWJVF?, posted by zazenduck on May 17, 2006, at 15:47:55
Please delete this as it might offend people in Texas who do not share these goals. There may be people who believe the world is better off without these beliefs. The fortunate and well connected may be offended at a change to their world. He seems to be speaking of a group (Texas) and not in I Feel words. He is using a negative not a positive.
>
> In the New Mainstream, quality health care can not be a privilege reserved for just the fortunate and the well-connected
>
> http://www.chrisbell.com/issues/healthcare
>
>
>
>
Posted by zazenduck on May 22, 2006, at 8:34:48
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » Estella, posted by zazenduck on May 18, 2006, at 11:03:10
When Bob dylan said you got to serve somebody I understand him to include all motivations including non religous atheistic philosophical nationalistic physical instincts and all other possible beliefs. i certainly didn't mean to suggest everyone has to serve somebody literally.
> > can't you just talk about your human values > But like ole Bob Zimmerman said before he renamed himself after a Welsh poet....You gotta serve somebody ....
Posted by tealady on May 25, 2006, at 2:53:08
In reply to The Long Withdrawing Roar » Estella, posted by Declan on May 21, 2006, at 2:35:40
> It is no doubt true that atheists are as good as anyone else; they could well be better. In the transition from a religiously based society to a different one, the habits of thought associated with religion can be grafted onto belief systems without the kinds of safeguards religion normally offers. I see Nazism and Marxism-Leninism in that light. No doubt there have been others. So my fear relates to change, more than any particular ideal. Things can always get worse.
> Declanhmm ya didn't see that cartoon where they were only letting atheists board planes? Not likely to be any matyrs among atheists.. and seeing as this IS the politics board, if everyone was atheist it sure would prevent a lot of this stuff..
I think ya have to have some belief in some kinda rebirth or afterlife to willingly throw one's life away, unless of course you wanted to end it all I guess:)I just wanted to say that most people in every society throughout history and pregistory seem to feel this need for a religion or to belong to some group maybe, and be directed in how to think.
That's what sad for me in a way, I just can't seem to accept anyone making guidelines for me to follow. I've always questioned.. well since about 13 years old anyway! And I can't see how I could ever follow any defined religion OR similarly as you say any cult and political doctrine enforced as rigidly..eg marxism, fascism etc
I think you're right its just replacing(partly or fully) one set of guidelines to live within with another set of guidelines.
Thing is.. everyone maybe except me ! seems to feel a need for these guidelines.
Do they really believe them? or is its they go along to be part of the group and don't really care , so just pretend?
The Kymer rouge was similar. I remeber them executing a young teenage couple who fell in love and wanted to marry.. the party was supposed to say who could love (marry) whom. Kinda thought control to the extreme some of these political groups?
Nice to read some of the posts here guys.
AND I can't see what was wrong with Estella's post either. When individuals aren't entitled to their own opinions .. is there something wrong with the system.. or is it another form of this group thing I just don't get???!!!Hugs, Estalla (I reckon you were 100%in the right). Thanks for still having an opinion of your own, even if I don't think people can survive within defined religions or something to replace them.. no idea why though. I can, but as you said, I DO feel this spiritual stuff and WAY too strongly too sometimes:-)
Ya know, they say the ability to form a religion or political grouping or some belief grouping is what distinguishes humans from other animals.. say dogs.. ??? Guess that's why I like/understand dogs:-) Theys eem to be able to love inconditional and feel and think without having any rules to follow:-)
Jan
Posted by zazenduck on May 25, 2006, at 13:07:09
In reply to Re: Please be Estella » 10derHeart, posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 0:53:02
I don't think God can be proven or disproven. Philosophical p*sturing is just **********. Like Ludwig Wittgenstein said "of that which we cannot speak we must remain silent"If the system is incapable of speaking to the question, it doesn't mean anything about God. It means under the conditions I define with the language which I have I cannot find what I have defined to be coherent. But God is not in your equation because God is supernatural and your system is natural. So saying it is not coherent in the natural world is irrelevant... when God is defined as being supernatural.
so it is only incoherent if you assume God is not God
>
> i'm sorry you felt put down by my post.
> i didn't mean for you to feel that way.
>
> > ther are limits, at Babble anyway.....
>
> i'm not sure how that hit up against the limits...
> having a little trouble here...
>
> > Well, at least now I know my beliefs may be seen as incoherant by others. Guess that'll have to be okay. I can live with that.
>
> incoherance is a formal property.
> that is the way i see it yes.
> though when pushed i'll back down to agnosticism
> - that should clue you in that it is very arguable indeed whether the formal property of incoherance is there or not ;-)
>
> the argument for incoherance is also known as the problem from evil. i'll reconstruct...
>
> 1) God is all powerful (can do anything)
> 2) God is all loving / kind / good / benevolent.
> (you grant those by definition)
> 3) There are instances of evil.
> That shouldn't be controversial for those inclined to christianity. For those not inclined to christianity I might need to argue for this a little. Some of my favourite examples:
> NATURAL EVIL - We can haggle over whether these count as 'evil' but just consider some destructive acts of nature. Consider the Tsunami. Consider whatever natural disaster you like.
> MORAL EVIL - Murder, rape, etc etc.
> Those things happen and those are the things I mean by 'evil'.
>
> Now in the face of those things...
> EITHER god chooses not to prevent them (so he is not all loving, kind, good).
> OR god cannot prevent them (so he is not all powerful).
>
> So the notion is you must either limit gods power or his goodness for the notion to be coherant.
>
> The problem of evil (which I prefer to consider an argument for incoherance) has been around for centuries... As such there have been a number of defensed (known as theodicies) trying to render the concept of god coherant in the face of the existence of natural and moral evil. i'll try a couple...
>
> THE FREE WILL THEODICY
>
> 1) Free will is a great good indeed and so cost benefit analysis shows that we are better off with free will even though some people use their free will to do evil.
>
> My response is - surely the existence of natural evil doesn't depend on human free will. Regarding moral evil either god COULD NOT give us free will but restrict the range of it to harming oneself or god CHOSE NOT to. This once again entails that either he is not 1 or he is not 2 or both.
>
> THE CHARACTER BUILDING THEODICY
>
> Natural and moral evil is necessary for us to build character.
>
> My response is EITHER god could not make it such that we didn't need to suffer evil to build character OR he chose not to make it such.
>
> Hence he is not 1 or he is not 2 or both.
>
> But this has been debated for centuries.
>
> Please don't take it personally that I think that concept of god is incoherant...
>
> Apparantly general relativity and quantum mechanics are similarly incoherant when you put them side by side...
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by zazenduck on May 25, 2006, at 13:56:13
In reply to atheists » Declan, posted by tealady on May 25, 2006, at 2:53:08
> Nice to read some of the posts here guys.
> AND I can't see what was wrong with Estella's post either. When individuals aren't entitled to their own opinions .. is there something wrong with the system.. or is it another form of this group thing I just don't get???!!!"... please try to accept what I decide and to trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole"
This is the altar call for Psychobabble taken from the FAQ. Almost all the rules are subjective. Trust in Bob and trying to figure out what Bob wants is the guiding principle. Rules are applied randomly and administrative inconsistency is a given. Rulings are handed down from on high based on Bob's apparent supernatural knowledge of what posters mean and what other posters known only to him might think they mean or feel. We are asked to trust him. It sounds like some sort of that group thang to me. :)
>
> Hugs, Estalla (I reckon you were 100%in the right). Thanks for still having an opinion of your own, even if I don't think people can survive within defined religions or something to replace them.. no idea why though. I can,
But are you sure you haven't replaced them with something? do you believe murder is wrong? stealing? lying? why? If you are operating totally from your personal ethics where did they come from?
>
> Ya know, they say the ability to form a religion or political grouping or some belief grouping is what distinguishes humans from other animals.. say dogs.. ??? Guess that's why I like/understand dogs:-) Theys eem to be able to love inconditional and feel and think without having any rules to follow:-)
>My dog was attacked by a fellow dog yesterday and I jumped in and saved him. I hope that renegade can be taught a rule or two by his person. Chalk one up for the human race?
But thanks for returning us to the subject of dogs and Kinky Friedman friend of the lost dawg....this thread really got away from my topic didn't it?
Posted by Declan on May 26, 2006, at 6:29:17
In reply to Re: atheists » tealady, posted by zazenduck on May 25, 2006, at 13:56:13
A hound dawg. He is now notified (chasing sheep) and is bored and tied up. The fines start at A$550 and work their way up to A$50,000. What will we do with him?
Declan
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.