The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
YouTube
Sorry I couldnt bleep the swearing, so please don't be offended
My parents handled it a lot better =) and I still get to have christmas presents ^^
I don't think going to church every week is suddenly going to change his mind. I wonder how she would have reacted, had he told her he was gay. =)
Sorry I couldnt bleep the swearing, so please don't be offended
My parents handled it a lot better =) and I still get to have christmas presents ^^
I don't think going to church every week is suddenly going to change his mind. I wonder how she would have reacted, had he told her he was gay. =)
Page:
I never understood why we are suffering for what Adam and Eve did.
The concept of Original Sin, that Adam & Eve brought evil and suffering into the world through their misuse of free will. It has always seemed harsh that it's carried on for this length of time, however, they are, by the Bible's account at least, the first humans.. so by extension it is placed upon their descendants.
tnc wrote:
> The concept of Original Sin,
"I..I poked a badger with a spoon!"
> The concept of Original Sin,
"I..I poked a badger with a spoon!"
Oh well I guess I'm grateful for original sin, without we'd all be a bunch of happy, naked, naive people dancing around in a beautiful garden somewhere. Did I just say I was grateful? O_o
Firstly, I think the document raises a lot of important points and has some pretty good justifications and moral arguments, however, I disagree with certain elements of the argument.
"It is however important not to be
labouring under the illusion that getting rid of God
somehow solves the problem of suffering."
I don't believe that people think removing God from the equation somehow correlates to removing all evil from the world or by saying that there is no God justifies the need for suffering.
I think it's more the case that many people cannot equate the values of omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent with a God that permisses suffering in the world, despite the argument of the misuse of free will. I suppose this is because it's nearly impossible to justify the mass annhilation of innocent people as simply paying off some 'sin-debt' owed to us by the actions of others, or perhaps are own petty sins. Do petty sins and the denial of Gods existent really equate to death? Is this a justifiable response? For many non-believers, myself included, the answer is 'no'.
"Because, brutally put, if there is no God then the
universe is nothing more than a meaningless
collection of atoms in space destined only for decay."
Why does the Universe have to have a purpose? I mean this as a sincere question. Many theologies, such as Christianity, endeavour to provide a purpose to a life. Obviously that purpose lies both in serving God and the message of Jesus and living an afterlife in Heaven.
However, I put forward the question, why does any life have to have any purpose? Perhaps that's all we really are, 'the waste products of evolution, the chance bumping of atomic and
subatomic particles', with no purpose in life other than to live.
Perhaps the purpose in life, for man at least, is simply to protect the world in which he lives for future generations. To conserve the world which he lives his life in for the sake of conserving it. Perhaps it is also his duty to leave a legacy of good, that others may follow, to make this world he left a better place. Maybe the sole purpose of life is to answer the questions of our existence, purpose and nature, without using theology or perhaps as well as theology.
'If there is no God then pain is ultimately nothing
more that nerve signals, grief nothing more than
chemicals in the brain. If there is no God there is
nothing to get angry about, nothing to grieve over. If
there is no God we live, we reproduce, we die.'
Pain is still a physical pain and often, perhaps more times than not, an emotional pang - reminding us of our existence within this 'mortal realm' and the lives we lead. Grief is also the sense that someone mattered to the interconnected web of people they lived their lives around.
It's true, however, that a sense of 'life being unfair' is inferred upon an 'unjust' (or so it may seem) God, but, grief is perhaps all the more crippling when there's no God as grief at loss is grief at the end. People with no religious beliefs do not believe they will be reunited with those they lost in Heaven or similar place.
With no God we may still live to be the best we be; all be it a life to more materialistc aims of a good job and a good life. However a loving family can be produced and people can work to save those in need. A sense of compassion, whether believed to have come for God or not, is all that is needed.
"It is however important not to be
labouring under the illusion that getting rid of God
somehow solves the problem of suffering."
I don't believe that people think removing God from the equation somehow correlates to removing all evil from the world or by saying that there is no God justifies the need for suffering.
I think it's more the case that many people cannot equate the values of omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent with a God that permisses suffering in the world, despite the argument of the misuse of free will. I suppose this is because it's nearly impossible to justify the mass annhilation of innocent people as simply paying off some 'sin-debt' owed to us by the actions of others, or perhaps are own petty sins. Do petty sins and the denial of Gods existent really equate to death? Is this a justifiable response? For many non-believers, myself included, the answer is 'no'.
"Because, brutally put, if there is no God then the
universe is nothing more than a meaningless
collection of atoms in space destined only for decay."
Why does the Universe have to have a purpose? I mean this as a sincere question. Many theologies, such as Christianity, endeavour to provide a purpose to a life. Obviously that purpose lies both in serving God and the message of Jesus and living an afterlife in Heaven.
However, I put forward the question, why does any life have to have any purpose? Perhaps that's all we really are, 'the waste products of evolution, the chance bumping of atomic and
subatomic particles', with no purpose in life other than to live.
Perhaps the purpose in life, for man at least, is simply to protect the world in which he lives for future generations. To conserve the world which he lives his life in for the sake of conserving it. Perhaps it is also his duty to leave a legacy of good, that others may follow, to make this world he left a better place. Maybe the sole purpose of life is to answer the questions of our existence, purpose and nature, without using theology or perhaps as well as theology.
'If there is no God then pain is ultimately nothing
more that nerve signals, grief nothing more than
chemicals in the brain. If there is no God there is
nothing to get angry about, nothing to grieve over. If
there is no God we live, we reproduce, we die.'
Pain is still a physical pain and often, perhaps more times than not, an emotional pang - reminding us of our existence within this 'mortal realm' and the lives we lead. Grief is also the sense that someone mattered to the interconnected web of people they lived their lives around.
It's true, however, that a sense of 'life being unfair' is inferred upon an 'unjust' (or so it may seem) God, but, grief is perhaps all the more crippling when there's no God as grief at loss is grief at the end. People with no religious beliefs do not believe they will be reunited with those they lost in Heaven or similar place.
With no God we may still live to be the best we be; all be it a life to more materialistc aims of a good job and a good life. However a loving family can be produced and people can work to save those in need. A sense of compassion, whether believed to have come for God or not, is all that is needed.
Oh and one of the contradictions within the Bible itself comes within Genesis where the animals are said to be food for mankind yet in another section of Genesis it states that there is fruit plentiful for man, so he does not need to eat the animals.
Eating animals gives them a purpose in life, but I guess that's another intelligent discussion.
tnc wrote:
> Oh and one of the contradictions within the Bible itself comes
> within Genesis where the animals are said to be food for mankind
> yet in another section of Genesis it states that there is fruit
> plentiful for man, so he does not need to eat the animals.
I don't know the exact reference, but before the fall (Adam and Eve eating the fruit), plants were man's food but one of the consequences of the fall was for man to eat meat.
As for your massive post; you asked "Why does life have to have a purpose?" It has to have a purpose to make it worth while and to bring about objective morality. If we are just some random accident then there is no such thing as morality. There may be opinions of a majority in society who live by rules to make things easier for each other but it doesn't mean those people are right or wrong. Why would it be wrong to kill someone if God didn't exist? We would just be a lump of meaningless flesh with no reason for existing so if one person has a different opinion to another person there would be nobody to say who is right or who is wrong.
Take the example of Ian Huntly or Myra Hindly etc. The crimes they committed were not just simply an inconvenience to society which warranted them being locked up, but rather the crimes they committed are viewed as objectively wrong. If there is no God then human life is an accident and is insignificant so killing someone wouldnt be objectively wrong.
> Oh and one of the contradictions within the Bible itself comes
> within Genesis where the animals are said to be food for mankind
> yet in another section of Genesis it states that there is fruit
> plentiful for man, so he does not need to eat the animals.
I don't know the exact reference, but before the fall (Adam and Eve eating the fruit), plants were man's food but one of the consequences of the fall was for man to eat meat.
As for your massive post; you asked "Why does life have to have a purpose?" It has to have a purpose to make it worth while and to bring about objective morality. If we are just some random accident then there is no such thing as morality. There may be opinions of a majority in society who live by rules to make things easier for each other but it doesn't mean those people are right or wrong. Why would it be wrong to kill someone if God didn't exist? We would just be a lump of meaningless flesh with no reason for existing so if one person has a different opinion to another person there would be nobody to say who is right or who is wrong.
Take the example of Ian Huntly or Myra Hindly etc. The crimes they committed were not just simply an inconvenience to society which warranted them being locked up, but rather the crimes they committed are viewed as objectively wrong. If there is no God then human life is an accident and is insignificant so killing someone wouldnt be objectively wrong.
I've never ever EVER understood that argument.
'Without God there are no morals'
This is objectively, implicitly, inherently, utter rubbish.
Check out 'Ethics, the study of'. They work. They provide reasonings for acting ethically outside those God gives, and I, along with probably several million other people, are living proof one can act morally without a God, or at least believe in morals.
Looking at applied Ethics, religious people AND secular people both commit outrageous acts, and both groups can do wonderful things. Looking at normative, it's utterly preposterous to me to argue that because God doesn't exist, we cannot have a decent moral code. Maybe I'm missing something.
'Without God there are no morals'
This is objectively, implicitly, inherently, utter rubbish.
Check out 'Ethics, the study of'. They work. They provide reasonings for acting ethically outside those God gives, and I, along with probably several million other people, are living proof one can act morally without a God, or at least believe in morals.
Looking at applied Ethics, religious people AND secular people both commit outrageous acts, and both groups can do wonderful things. Looking at normative, it's utterly preposterous to me to argue that because God doesn't exist, we cannot have a decent moral code. Maybe I'm missing something.
Geffdof wrote:
> If we are just some
> random accident then there is no such thing as morality. There
> may be opinions of a majority in society who live by rules to
> make things easier for each other but it doesn't mean those
> people are right or wrong.
We have developed a sense of morality, based on conscience, via living in a society
> Why would it be wrong to kill someone
> if God didn't exist?
Because obviously it's an act which causes great emotional trauma to the other person and we live in a conscious society, knowing full well what are actions do to others
> We would just be a lump of meaningless flesh
> with no reason for existing so if one person has a different
> opinion to another person there would be nobody to say who is
> right or who is wrong.
The Bible may say 'what is right or wrong', but it's still up for interpretation. Likewise, we may only be a 'lump of meaningless flesh', why is it so inconceivable that we have no greater purpose? Like I said though, the purpose could be secular; in terms of preserving the planet, living a good life etc
> If we are just some
> random accident then there is no such thing as morality. There
> may be opinions of a majority in society who live by rules to
> make things easier for each other but it doesn't mean those
> people are right or wrong.
We have developed a sense of morality, based on conscience, via living in a society
> Why would it be wrong to kill someone
> if God didn't exist?
Because obviously it's an act which causes great emotional trauma to the other person and we live in a conscious society, knowing full well what are actions do to others
> We would just be a lump of meaningless flesh
> with no reason for existing so if one person has a different
> opinion to another person there would be nobody to say who is
> right or who is wrong.
The Bible may say 'what is right or wrong', but it's still up for interpretation. Likewise, we may only be a 'lump of meaningless flesh', why is it so inconceivable that we have no greater purpose? Like I said though, the purpose could be secular; in terms of preserving the planet, living a good life etc
Page: