Religion

trotsky

(49,533 posts)

34. I'm not going to answer any further questions now that you've launched into personal attacks again.

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 01:03 PM

Dec 2016

Apologize and I'll happily answer your questions.

But I know you won't. How amazing it would be though for you to prove me wrong for once.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

184 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is the universe evil? [View all] guillaumeb Dec 2016 OP

I'm not sure what "evil" is... TreasonousBastard Dec 2016 #1

It would be hard to define one without the other. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #2

The opposite of "good" is "bad". Iggo Dec 2016 #115

Not exactly-- it's a very common construct... TreasonousBastard Dec 2016 #117

Religion. Iggo Dec 2016 #118

'Evil' is the default position, if God exists. immoderate Dec 2016 #3

But if one does not believe in a deity, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #4

People (and deities) can do evil things. Depends on whose ox is gored. immoderate Dec 2016 #8

How could we ever determine whether "the universe is sentient" or not? struggle4progress Jan 2017 #119

Response time? immoderate Jan 2017 #120

What would be the appropriate time scale? struggle4progress Jan 2017 #121

Since the universe has good things too? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #14

Whuch argument can then be applied to a deity, a Creator. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #21

Closer to neutral. But leaving a clockwork universe? With Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #43

There is no unlimited freedom for humans. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #50

"evil" is normally attributed to a thinking entity muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #5

Is smallpox sentient? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #6

No, it isn't sentient; that's why I talked about it under a wider definition of 'evil' muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #7

And with great power can include great insight. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #10

And what about avoidable suffering from diseases or other causes? muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #13

Would you prefer a universe will no sharp objects, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #20

Sharp objects are useful. Diseases are not. If you think a god has the power to eliminate muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #30

But your design might have adverse effects built into it. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #33

If there's a "Creator' that can see humans, it's either powerless or evil muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #41

"If" we were really entirely free Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #15

And in imagining and building that technology, we are acting in the image guillaumeb Dec 2016 #26

No immortal soul that counts most, as the end? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #47

I believe that the soul is immortal. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #51

Doesn't matter. trotsky Dec 2016 #19

Your conception of the Creator does not answer that question. eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #27

Neither does yours, despite all your failed efforts to do so. n/t trotsky Dec 2016 #29

The universe is not evil or good. It just is. Oneironaut Dec 2016 #9

Thank you. This is a point that others, and I, have made here. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #11

But if you believe that god created the universe Goblinmonger Dec 2016 #12

I do believe. And so do you. We just believe differnt things. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #22

No. I don't believe. Goblinmonger Dec 2016 #38

You literally have no beliefs that cannot be proven? eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #44

Didn't say that. Goblinmonger Dec 2016 #54

Believing that there is a god, or non-believing ares till both beliefs. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #58

Not how I (and others) see it. Goblinmonger Dec 2016 #60

Joyce was unique. Simply not to my taste. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #61

Oh, it's not for everyone. Goblinmonger Dec 2016 #63

I tried Joyce. Really, I tried. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #65

That's a fairly Deist argument. Oneironaut Dec 2016 #66

The universe is probably not willed, or good or evil, in itself Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #16

I agree that creation, or the universe(s), is/are not good or evil. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #23

OK, you don't believe in a sentient god muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #31

That is not actually what I said. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #35

You said 'evil' does not apply to something without sentience muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #40

Evil implies intent. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #46

If we have no idea what a deity intends, then screw them muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #49

That apparently works for you. eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #52

Uh, no. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #56

If you intended to hurt someone I would say yes, that could be called evil. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #59

Completely disagree. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #62

Is addiction a choice or a consequence of a genetic weakness? eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #64

Irrelevant. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #74

Catholic doctrine some times says creator and creation are distinct Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #42

Is disease a made thing, or is it an accident of evolution? eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #48

Can the Creator control his creation, or is that 'out of his hands' or 'above his pay grade?' immoderate Dec 2016 #53

A Creator who created the universe guillaumeb Dec 2016 #57

I feel some "mysterious ways" coming on. immoderate Dec 2016 #69

There are many mysteries. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #70

Right! That's why people make shit up! immoderate Dec 2016 #71

At one time, reality was a flat earth. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #72

Sorry, the earth was never flat. Or inhabited by leprechauns. immoderate Dec 2016 #73

But it does. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #75

My point, exactly! immoderate Dec 2016 #78

And that admission is bizarre. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #79

They voted for something different. immoderate Dec 2016 #81

It depends on how and why the universe is here in an individual's own personal view... nil desperandum Dec 2016 #17

In your response, you have defined God as you need to in order that you can make guillaumeb Dec 2016 #24

I haven't defined the creator at all nil desperandum Dec 2016 #37

If you believe in a "creator" or god, then yes, it is, and it's a problem for your belief system. trotsky Dec 2016 #18

"Failed efforts" is your assesment, and one tha,t quite frankly, I expected. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #25

It's my assessment, and that of the many others who have demolished your talking points. trotsky Dec 2016 #28

Your responses reveal much about you. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #32

I'm not going to answer any further questions now that you've launched into personal attacks again. trotsky Dec 2016 #34

Point out any of your responses to me in this thread that do NOT contain guillaumeb Dec 2016 #36

Pointing out that you've failed to defend your argument is an insult? trotsky Dec 2016 #39

Avoidance. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #45

Avoidance indeed is what you're engaging in. trotsky Dec 2016 #55

Only if the laws of physics are evil. nt ladjf Dec 2016 #67

Exactly. Good an evil are judgements we make about behavior. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #68

No, it's utterly impersonal Warpy Dec 2016 #76

A giant machine. We are a part of the machine. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #77

I wouldn't go that far Warpy Dec 2016 #80

If there is a creator of the universe who is omnipotent in the universe... Humanist_Activist Dec 2016 #82

If there is a Creator, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #83

Where does free will enter into accidents, natural disasters, disease? Humanist_Activist Dec 2016 #84

In a dynamic, evolving universe, where anything can happen, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #85

Which points to it being a universe without a consious creative force acting on it at all. n/t Humanist_Activist Dec 2016 #90

It points to a universe where things happen. eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #95

Exactly, and apparently without any direction or goals in mind... Humanist_Activist Jan 2017 #141

If you cannot see the direction, or understand the goals, does that guillaumeb Jan 2017 #142

Trees lack brains and sensory organs to see the saw or anything else... Humanist_Activist Jan 2017 #143

I feel the analogy is sufficient to make the point. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #144

Does it matter? You are talking about god being a Lovecraftian entity... Humanist_Activist Jan 2017 #145

Made in the image and likeness refers to sentience, not appearance. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #148

"Made in the image and likeness refers to sentience, not appearance." trotsky Jan 2017 #154

Given that we all make statements of belief here, it should be apparent guillaumeb Jan 2017 #156

No, "we all" don't. trotsky Jan 2017 #157

Yes, it is a statement of fact. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #159

"faith does not need proof" - BZZZT. trotsky Jan 2017 #162

Faith does not need proof. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #163

Faith is destroyed by proof. trotsky Jan 2017 #169

Produce the claim that you claim was made that science and faith ARE equivalent. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #170

Dude, what? trotsky Jan 2017 #171

What I said: guillaumeb Jan 2017 #172

Well I'm glad you admit it was a straw man position. trotsky Jan 2017 #173

Allow me to be more specific. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #174

Why? Do you feel that justifies what you do? n/t trotsky Jan 2017 #175

The direct answer is Yes. Or No. rug Jan 2017 #178

Your non-response, coupled with your easily viewable responses here, guillaumeb Jan 2017 #179

I asked a question first. trotsky Jan 2017 #182

You do not appear to be looking for answers so much as looking for trigger words. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #183

Nope, just asking a question. trotsky Jan 2017 #184

Fourtunately, volumes have been written on this over the centuries. rug Jan 2017 #158

I am used to it by now. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #164

It's pointless. You know his posting history well enough to see what he's up to. rug Jan 2017 #165

The poster does seem quite secure in the atheistic faith. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #166

If he were, he wouldn't be so compelled to attack religion regardless of the topic. rug Jan 2017 #167

This is what I feel represents fundamentalist atheism. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #168

He could have done without the eye-eating parasites though. AtheistCrusader Dec 2016 #87

A lot of things could be done away with, but to what consequence? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #88

Pretty sure the consequences of losing an eye parasite would be negligible. trotsky Dec 2016 #91

Do I win any award for my callousness? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #96

No, you just get to humiliate yourself again. trotsky Dec 2016 #98

Interersting how you love to term everything that you cannot accept guillaumeb Dec 2016 #103

Uhh, sorry to break this to you... trotsky Dec 2016 #106

If nothing else, you are consistent. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #108

You got me. I'm intolerant of views that aren't backed up by facts or solid argumentation. trotsky Dec 2016 #109

Interesting burden. AtheistCrusader Dec 2016 #93

Acanthamoebae are important bacterivores though. rug Jan 2017 #160

The universe is an *environment*, not a moral agent. AtheistCrusader Dec 2016 #86

I agree. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #89

Yet you define one anyway. trotsky Dec 2016 #92

I state my understanding of what the Creator might be. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #97

No, you have asserted its existence, and knowledge of its properties. trotsky Dec 2016 #99

A glaring and extremely common example being: Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #100

Exactly. n/t trotsky Dec 2016 #101

I have asserted my belief in the existence of a Creator. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #104

Well, you have insinuated many times now that you think I'm stupid. trotsky Dec 2016 #107

You might be projecting here. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #110

More personal attacks instead of arguments. trotsky Dec 2016 #111

More projection. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #112

You have no idea how I approach argument, because you won't actually offer one. trotsky Dec 2016 #113

Still waiting for your citations about what you claim I said. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #114

I win the bet! Yay! trotsky Dec 2016 #116

When you claim it cannot be defined by us, you are, in fact, defining it. AtheistCrusader Dec 2016 #94

it's good and evil heaven05 Dec 2016 #102

If that works for you I understand. eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #105

Guil's post here is a landmark one for DU Bretton Garcia Jan 2017 #122

Do you have a link to the post? eom guillaumeb Jan 2017 #123

Very useful discussion. More needed. Bretton Garcia Jan 2017 #124

Agreed. I think more discussion of issues as well as incidents is a good thing. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #125

For me the issue is the universe Bretton Garcia Jan 2017 #132

I can see the obvious advantages of co-operation and anything that promotes the group. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #133

Well said so far. Bretton Garcia Jan 2017 #135

Likewise. eom guillaumeb Jan 2017 #138

Switching to the language of a pragmatic ethics, Bretton Garcia Jan 2017 #146

Pragmatic ethics? guillaumeb Jan 2017 #150

Yes Bretton Garcia Jan 2017 #161

Where is this Universe? I have never been there. pangaia Jan 2017 #126

There could be many. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #127

My download speed is a measly 5.5 or so. pangaia Jan 2017 #128

That depends on your perspective, and your beliefs. eom guillaumeb Jan 2017 #130

I agree the universe is hard to find Bretton Garcia Jan 2017 #134

I think the universe is more impersonal than that. WhiteTara Jan 2017 #129

What action caused creation? guillaumeb Jan 2017 #131

"No one knows" is probably the better answer. Bretton Garcia Jan 2017 #136

But science, at least in my conception, cannot explore what existed prior to the universe, or the guillaumeb Jan 2017 #139

Religion gave up on what came before God; what made God Bretton Garcia Jan 2017 #147

LIberal does not equate to open for discussion. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #151

Sorry to take so long in getting back with you WhiteTara Jan 2017 #149

What an interresting answer. Well worth the short wait. guillaumeb Jan 2017 #152

I think (no guarantees that I'm right) that all sentient creation WhiteTara Jan 2017 #153

I would say that all sentience is a part of the Creator guillaumeb Jan 2017 #155

Stephen Crane sums it up in one of my favorite poems Goblinmonger Jan 2017 #137

Very true. eom guillaumeb Jan 2017 #140

After the leak of the report on Trump, Sanity Claws Jan 2017 #176

Wicked indeed. Or this is another test for the GOP. eom guillaumeb Jan 2017 #180

LOL! As if we, the collective we, in our infantile knowledge could know. n/t RKP5637 Jan 2017 #177

True. Very true. eom guillaumeb Jan 2017 #181