Show Posts
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 84
|
|
32
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Existence of God or Lack Thereof
|
on: August 25, 2008, 01:01:23 PM
|
Creator was powerful enough to create this world.
You have no evidence for this claim. Now none of us knows the reason but what i can certainly claim what some human may define as 'suffering that GOD cannot stop' could be things GOD wants those ppl pass though or he is not interested in stopping them. Look on the picture bit bigger. I don't know about Irish Lenin but Totino you definitely play PC games because you could play COD4 on Linux while no0ne else could. Think of our planet as Sim City game when GOD doesn't play it for fun IMHO.
Ask yourself what reason would you have to create another world which will be possible in next 1000 years if we remain alive till then.
I would open lots of simulations worlds ( which run on higher speeds) 1.to experiment on them 2.to test my policies on them first 3.to get technological progress as we know any human being can create and few can do one thing differently which maybe a "reinventing the wheel' to some but to other can be the solution.
be bit more creative than just atheists who make a religion out of their disbelief.
What i dislike about religious is that they set themselves as center that GOD needs to be concentrated on or make them special AND not belief on GOD itself.
This is interesting. I have come across this idea before, though not in terms of Sim City.
|
|
|
|
|
33
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Existence of God or Lack Thereof
|
on: August 24, 2008, 11:57:49 AM
|
Yup, I'm starting up another one. As I've never really partaken in this section, I apologize if this argument has been covered already. But I found this argument against the existence to be one of the better I've heard:
"If there is a creator then he obviously either can't do anything about the suffering in the world, or he just won't. He's not doing anything about it? Really? Don't you see God working through churches and other organizations to alleviate suffering? 300 volunteers from my church went down to New Orleans to rebuild houses. Does that reflect God's inabillity or his apathy? If he can't do anything about it, he is not All-powerful. And if he can but won't, then he is not All-loving. You pose these as if they were mutually exclusive alternatives (i.e. not all-loving or not all-powerful); They aren't. You have not provided definitions for all-powerful or all-knowing as Wong pointed out. Here is a simple illustration; A parent who vaccinates their child from Polio is loving, are they not? Despite the painful prick of the needle? Sometimes pain is necessary. In other cases, we chose to cause pain or suffering. Is love more readily demonstrated through protection or through free will? IOW, would you prefer that God hold your hand and tell you exactly what to do? Is that what good parents do? One of the best things my parents ever did was kick me out of the house and send me to college... If he is not all powerful, and can't relieve my suffering, then why should I rely on him? I'm better to rely on myself. And if he is not all powerful, is he really a God?
If he can but won't, then why rely on him since he won't do it? If he was going to, he would have done it a long time ago." Do what you want... I've heard some rebuttals to this, which have all been debunked. But, what say you?
Not the best argument I've heard. It is a false dilemma fallacy. It is only a false dichotomy if suffering is good in all the circumstances in which it arises. Also, the parent analogy doesn't apply, since parents can only make the best of the world they live in, which requires sacrifice, whereas "god" created the world in which suffering is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
Assistance and Feedback / The Lobbyist (Off Topic) / Re: Best Post/Quote of the Week
|
on: August 23, 2008, 10:56:20 AM
|
My uncle was a Marine and once told me a story about the time he caught three sailors trying to smuggle a puppy onto a ship. He said he took the puppy from them, told them he was going to shoot it. He walked around the building with it and fired two shots, handing the puppy off to one of his buddies. He then went back around and gave them a lecture about how important it is not to smuggle contraband on US government property, emphasizing that a little puppy died that day because of their infraction. The puppy went to a good home.
lol. That's a good story.
|
|
|
|
|
37
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Wal-Mart tells employees: Don't vote for Obama
|
on: August 22, 2008, 11:31:45 AM
|
How is Walmart asking its employees to vote AGAINST Obama any different than the Labor Unions telling its employees to vote FOR them?
While I do not like either practice, the Labor Unions have been doing this for literally DECADES with no outcry.
No outcry from me, but I do think we can infer that Obama will be good for workers if Wal-Mart are against him.
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Existence of God or Lack Thereof
|
on: August 21, 2008, 12:36:00 PM
|
And if he can but won't, then he is not All-loving.
That only assumes that you can reason in the same position as God, while you can't. For example, define 'all-loving'. You can't. For your argument to work there would have to be some sense in which suffering is good. I'm waiting.
|
|
|
|
|
39
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Wal-Mart tells employees: Don't vote for Obama
|
on: August 21, 2008, 12:29:23 PM
|
Social Justice, huh? While a few union members get to benefit, every other employee is thrown out onto the curb.
Anyone can join a union if they wish, so I don't quite understand your "a few union members get to benefit" comment. Every worker benefits from union activities, and the proposals mentioned are designed to protect workers, regardless of what Wal-Mart says to scare its employees. Until a union does start and Wal-Mart may find it more profitable to just close up shop until they can find non-union workers. Now everyone is out of a job except those who now have an opportunity for employment with Wal-Mart as a non-union member. So, OK sure sounds like a good idea to me. People who really wanted the work can now get it. Expect the government to exert some pressure? Good luck with that, at least in America. In most civilized countries it is illegal to fire someone for joining a union, that should be one of the reforms, if it is not the law already. (I'm not sure).
|
|
|
|
|
41
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Whoops, Patton's CIC Appears To Have Screwed Up Again
|
on: August 20, 2008, 02:17:56 PM
|
Now you all bring in Powell?
Hilarious.
Why not Wesely Clark or ANY other General in the Army, Navy or Air Force?
It still doesn't fill the hole in Obama's EMPTY resume'.....well....except for his 6th Grade Social Studies class.
Just keep pushing the empty resume formula like it means something. It has never been a requirement before. None of the previous Presidents, at least as far back as Carter (according to my not very scientific search) has attended, and the National War College page on Wikipedia gives Powell as the most famous alumni. The logical reason for this is that, since Obama is young then the "inexperienced" line will stick, for purely psychological reasons, even though it has never been an issue before. It is pure marketing, and nothing else. As for Powell, do you not think bringing him in gives some insight as to what kind of alumnus the NWC produces (i.e. an amoral war-hawk).
|
|
|
|
|
42
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Wal-Mart tells employees: Don't vote for Obama
|
on: August 20, 2008, 01:40:48 PM
|
Social Justice, huh? While a few union members get to benefit, every other employee is thrown out onto the curb.
Anyone can join a union if they wish, so I don't quite understand your "a few union members get to benefit" comment. Every worker benefits from union activities, and the proposals mentioned are designed to protect workers, regardless of what Wal-Mart says to scare its employees.
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Wal-Mart tells employees: Don't vote for Obama
|
on: August 19, 2008, 12:59:16 PM
|
This is one of the best reasons for voting Obama that I have heard (that is not sarcasm BTW).
If your a Wal-Mart employee or just anyone? Anyone, unless you are on the board of directors of some big company. Eh... I can only stretch that to un- or low-skilled workers who need some sort of bargaining power. I'd stretch it to "anyone interested in social justice", but that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
45
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Interventionism
|
on: August 19, 2008, 12:23:37 PM
|
But it sure paints a different picture doesn't it?
Not really. Unless, "the others were doing it too" (a standard schoolboy excuse) is acceptable when it comes to international affairs. That of course depends on whether your an idealist or a realist. Never heard a teacher say that... In international politics there is no teacher. That's the problem. But morality is morality. Morality isn't black and white. Indeed. Does that excuse US aggression?
|
|
|
|
|