Ender

Yes, Orson Scott Card and Friedrich Nietzsche make an odd couple.

Not in the least. That signature is an amalgam of the 2nd book of Ender's Game series and Nietzsche's pronouncement of God. As usual, you're reading too much into it!

God as a concept is a complex one, not a simple one, and isn't derivable from empirical data. Therefore it must be an amalgam of simple impressions, and an inference of reason.

In the unlikely case you're interested in a serious discussion: I subscribe to the epistemology that divides knowledge into two- a priori and a posteriori. A priori knowledge is mostly mathematics and logic, or propositions which truth is independent of experience, whereas a posteriori concerns matter of facts or existence or propositions which truth is dependent upon experience. The former is necessary truth, that 2 plus 2 is always four, whereas the latter is contingent- the existence of an object depends upon empirical verification. This leads to the inference that no object's (empirical, within space & time) existence is demonstrable.

What do you know! Your first pop-psychological ploy! Inside of two posts, after I made such a daring prognosis!

Cripes. Walrus sure has "atheistic" issues, for coming back to this forum ad nauseam. See? I can do cheap pop psychology justas well!

~WiGGiN~

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Ender, you have made the claim that some natural processes are inherently 'evil'...you must back this claim up and explain *why* they are evil.

For one can just as easily ask: Why would they be?

If tectonic pressure in a geographical region builds up to a certain point a small fissure may form between the earths tectonic plates. Pressure as well as magma may escape from this fissure. In laymans terms this is a volcano. It is a completely natural process.

When this volcano erupts no one mopes around, rending their clothes pouring ashes on their head in pure horror of the 'evil' that has just occured. 99% of the time mankind doesn't even notice as most volcanos are underwater (where they support and build huge eloborate ecosystems of life)

However, if mankind hikes up and builds a town on top of that volcano AND IT ERUPTS...then and ONLY then do people declare it a 'catastrophe' and wonder how God could allow such 'evil' to befall the world.

Morever, if earthquakes are evil then any natural process can subjectively be deemed evil. Falling trees, rocks, etc. Even gravity itself is evil for it promotes these horrible travesties of injustice.

As you can see, this is a dubious philosophical position with little if any intellectual weight.


My favorite so far...
??

Uh...I *just* explained 'what they are'.


Please re-read the above statements carefully. In them you will find that I detail fairly thouroughly what they are. Claiming 'non-sequiter' does not change the fact that an earthquake is a natural process.

Remember: YOU are attempting to show them earthquakes, volcanos, etc as 'poverty of the good'...not me. You are making the claim....not me. The burden of proof of 'natural processes are evil' rests on your shoulders...not mine.

Thougts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Dath,
Bizzare.


You are saying that Christian theology places man above God. That man determines what is evil...not God.





Tell me, can you give any scriptural evidence to support such a claim?


I didn't think so.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Ender

False. not all volcanoes are harmless. One that does erupt unexpectedly rain undiscriminating death, destruction and ruin on everybody. Assuming there is one, a designer who created a world that contains such natural disasters is sufficient evidence that the designer lacks a benevolent characteristic.
Ah, second-guessing is an art perfected by idiots like you. I’m sure you can find a location on this world where no natural disasters will ever strike, is safe from meteors, and will be immune to the inevitable supernovae explosion in the future. In fact, how do you know there are no would-be volcanoes or newly birthed fault lines or a new festering strain of bubonic plaque in your area? Where would be a safe place to live?
Let’s not be too generous with the hasty generalizations here, theist. There are degrees of evil. What impoverishes the quality of life is evil. What is the difference between an empirical proof of pain and a subjective assessment of evil? I’ll save you the trouble of exercising linguistic gymnastics. There isn’t any. A subjective assessment of evil is predicated on empirical evidence of pain. If the slow-moving lava causes searing heat and pain, then I deem the volcano “evil.” How did I decide that natural disasters are “evil?” They cause death and destruction. They are the stuff of the worst nightmares. That's why we call them 'natural disasters!' I wouldn't wish them on anyone, not even thick-witted theists like you.
It’s quite obvious you are no paragon of philosophy. Ergo, this all-too-gratuitous statement is of little substance and does not deserve a remark.
No you did not. You refused to evaluate them according to a value system, i.e. your own, and you decided to employ evasive maneuvers by hiding behind scientific descriptions that uses causality to explain the natural process. Science describes events, but doesn’t tell us what to do. Science is a tool to be used, a ruler, a protractor, but there is no code of ethics to live by, at least according to science. Science cannot give us a value judgment. Ergo, the human evaluation of natural disasters is, & has always been a negative one.
That is why you completely failed to answer my question- what are natural disasters, if they are not evil? They’re just “is?” Are they good? Would you prefer them to occur where you live as opposed to a life of tranquility where your family and friends are? Do you weigh their greater role in the scheme of things (balance of life, etc) and decide it must outweigh your own wishes, desires of a “certain” life? If so, you’re a hypocritical and phony charlatan and this conversation is worthless.
I deemed these natural descriptions irrelevant to the question at hand- I asked what were your valuations of these natural disasters, whether they were good or evil, not how they worked. You gave me a totally irrelevant answer. Therefore you only serve to reinforce my negative opinion of theists with evasions, non-sequiturs, and a general ignorance about morality.
Burden of proof? Do you even understand what that phrase means? The onus of burden of proof is always on the person who asserts something. My assertion (that ND is evil) does not fall victim to the “shifting of burden of proof” fallacy because I do not assume that “natural disasters are evil,” or that I am claiming that it is true unless proven otherwise. In fact, the statement is tautologous- according to my evaluation of evil as a poverty of the good. You have not shown how they are not evil. Again, your appalling ignorance is embarrassing and should be a textbook example for everyone how to debate poorly. If they are not evil, are they good? Remember I made the moral evaluation of natural disasters as a negative, and you disagreed. I then asked you if they were good instead. You gave me a bogus explanation of their natural processes that went nowhere. Try to keep up.

~WiGGiN~

Ender

SOMMS

Try reading Voltaire's Candide some time. It's directly relevant to our topic. You'll figure out why i recommend that book- it's a classic!

~WiGGiN~

WJ

Koy!

I didn't know this was a 'contest'? If it is, then what are you contesting? (God doesn't exist.)

The reason I keep asking that question is because you just wrote a big long jibberish marketing ploy for advocation of Atheism. For the life of me, please tell us what's your point??

You sound like a Theist selling God. In the case of the atheist, all you're doing is making apriori statements about something you have no clue about, not to mention the oxymoron from the fundamental belief God doesn't exist.

You said you 'could handle me'. What does that mean? Again, it sounds like you are into 'politics', almost like a Jehovah's Witness.

Make sense?


Walrus
----------
Atheism is another Religion(?) <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

brighid

Oh – let the thrashing begin! Trumpets playing in the back ground, drum roll and a screaming crowd … awaiting the entrance of our Gladiator – Koy ….

B

snatchbalance

SOMMS


If real evil can only be conjured by man, why bring some sort of god into the picture?

I mean, if this is the case, wouldn't a more obvious explanation for evil acts simply be various forms of mental aberation?

David Berkowitz(Son of Sam) acted at the direction of a dog; Jim Jones acted at the direction of god, what difference? Different delusions?

Snatchbalance

Koyaanisqatsi

Sorry to disappoint, brighid, but there's nothing here to combat.

It clearly is not.

See above.

Sorry, judging from what little I've seen of your posts, I thought you spoke jibberish [sic].

To clarify, my post was in response to your oft-repeated, inane sidetrack "what's your point?"

I then proceeded to demonstrate precisely what my point was; that just as the ideology of, say, Nazism exists in the minds of human's, we, as a conscientious world people interested in removing the poison from the collective unconscious' drinking well, should put every effort available into eradicating such demonstrably (and historically) "evil" ideology, so that it ceases to be any kind of social detriment whatsoever.

Your post implied that cults such as christianity were somehow benign institutions. They are not.

I'm sorry if that wasn't painfully clear.

Well, to save your life, I've provided it.

Do I? Well, fight fire with fire, I guess. What's your point?

In the case of WJ, all you're doing is making asinine ancillary false accusations you couldn't possibly substantiate; an irrelevant straw man smokescreen to hide the fact that you've made, as yet, no salient observations or even remotely relevant remarks.

There's some alliteration for you in case gibberish is not the only language you respond to.

I hold no such belief. Fictional creatures do not factually exist. That is extant, so to what "oxymoron" are you referring?

It was a comment I made in response to Ender's warning. I'm a snake-oil-salesman handler.

Only to you.

No, Atheism is the absence of "another Religion." Perhaps that's where you're confused?

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

brighid

I know – (with downtrodden look upon my face ) But a girl can dream, can’t she? That line of thought did however conjure up visions of you in Gladiator apparel ala Russell Crowe

But come on Koy (as I stomp my feet and pout while throwing a temper tantrum like a petulant child) dash the theist to pieces – I want you to (pout some more) because I am so bored today and I have seen you do it before! Come on!!! (pout, pout, sniffle, sniffle)

Brighid

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>