Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What do u think of this picture?

Announcements Posted on
One quick question - from of our list, who would you most like to see on TSR doing a Q&A? 23-09-2014
Complete this short survey for a chance to win an iPad mini! 22-09-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:


    This is more directed to gnostic atheists...
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Not a great analogy. As we have empirical evidence for a mother, whereas we have none for god.

    Anyway, this just seems to suggest your God is - "A God Of Blanks". Where phenomena that we have yet to explain is just explained by "God".

    I prefer this picture.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	epicurus-quote.jpg 
Views:	833 
Size:	38.4 KB 
ID:	145837
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well, it's quite stupid, isn't it?
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Not believing in 'Mom' because you cannot see her (the babies more than likely would feel the mother's presence, and hear her talk) is one thing, but believing in a sky-god hiding in some golden portable shrine and who has a preference for a small section of the population is another.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Pretty sure this is the third time this month this picture has been posted in the religion forum.

    The result is not going to be different no matter how many times it gets posted. It's still a poor analogy.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheRustaman)
    Not a great analogy. As we have empirical evidence for a mother, whereas we have none for god.

    Anyway, this just seems to suggest your God is - "A God Of Blanks". Where phenomena that we have yet to explain is just explained by "God".

    I prefer this picture.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	epicurus-quote.jpg 
Views:	833 
Size:	38.4 KB 
ID:	145837
    About your picture... It depends what do u define as evil. And its not that simple. Able and willing really ? There are so many scenarios ? I dont wanna discuss...

    What do you mean empirical ?
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's stupid.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neofytos)
    About your picture... It depends what do u define as evil. And its not that simple. Able and willing really ? There are so many scenarios ? I dont wanna discuss...

    What do you mean empirical ?
    I'm talking about millions of people dying each year, from starvation, cancer, murder... the list could go on.

    So on that basis:
    Is he able to prevent this? Omipotent - Yes Omnibenevolent - No = Paradox (Malevolent)
    Is he willing to prevent this? Omnipotent - No Omnibenevolent - Yes = Paradox (Not all powerful)

    This is only relevant to Gods from religion though. It doesn't refute a creator God. Not that i believe that either.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ..lauren)
    Well, it's quite stupid, isn't it?
    This.


    Hahahaha.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheRustaman)
    I'm talking about millions of people dying each year, from starvation, cancer, murder... the list could go on.

    So on that basis:
    Is he able to prevent this? Omipotent - Yes Omnibenevolent - No = Paradox (Malevolent)
    Is he willing to prevent this? Omnipotent - No Omnibenevolent - Yes = Paradox (Not all powerful)

    This is only relevant to Gods from religion though. It doesn't refute a creator God. Not that i believe that either.
    (1) Let's say for arguments sake, that God is present and is up there in the sky.

    (2) Let us say that he is in charge of everything (omnipotent).


    Now consider this scenario. If there was no disease, no suffering, cancer, murder, starvation, wars (and all the other things that Atheists claim "why does God not prevent this?") tell me what the population of the world would be?

    It sounds callous but stop and think about it. If not one person in the world died from "natural disasters", cancer, starvation, murder etc, would the world be overcrowded? If people are saying TODAY THAT THE WORLD IS OVERCROWDED, imagine if no one suffered or died from an "unnatural death".
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by squishy123)
    (1) Let's say for arguments sake, that God is present and is up there in the sky.

    (2) Let us say that he is in charge of everything (omnipotent).


    Now consider this scenario. If there was no disease, no suffering, cancer, murder, starvation, wars (and all the other things that Atheists claim "why does God not prevent this?") tell me what the population of the world would be?

    It sounds callous but stop and think about it. If not one person in the world died from "natural disasters", cancer, starvation, murder etc, would the world be overcrowded? If people are saying TODAY THAT THE WORLD IS OVERCROWDED, imagine if no one suffered or died from an "unnatural death".
    Well, if we make the assumption that god is going to stop war, cancer, diseases etc.

    Then surely he'd also be able to just increase the size of the planet?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amime)
    Well, if we make the assumption that god is going to stop war, cancer, diseases etc.

    Then surely he'd also be able to just increase the size of the planet?
    How would scientists explain "the world increases 2x every time the population increases 4x" phnomena?
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheRustaman)
    Not a great analogy. As we have empirical evidence for a mother, whereas we have none for god.

    Anyway, this just seems to suggest your God is - "A God Of Blanks". Where phenomena that we have yet to explain is just explained by "God".

    I prefer this picture.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	epicurus-quote.jpg 
Views:	833 
Size:	38.4 KB 
ID:	145837
    I Prefer this one:

    "Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like like a safecracker or a pickpocket. And when you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by squishy123)
    (1) Let's say for arguments sake, that God is present and is up there in the sky.

    (2) Let us say that he is in charge of everything (omnipotent).


    Now consider this scenario. If there was no disease, no suffering, cancer, murder, starvation, wars (and all the other things that Atheists claim "why does God not prevent this?") tell me what the population of the world would be?

    It sounds callous but stop and think about it. If not one person in the world died from "natural disasters", cancer, starvation, murder etc, would the world be overcrowded? If people are saying TODAY THAT THE WORLD IS OVERCROWDED, imagine if no one suffered or died from an "unnatural death".
    Maybe 'god' shouldn't have created such an imperfect world that it is unable to sustain the space and resource requirements of the human race? Why would an all-loving god allow his 'precious creations' to be murdered and slaughtered and killed through natural causes? How does he pick those 'special few' who die in such unfortunate circumstances?
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheRustaman)
    I'm talking about millions of people dying each year, from starvation, cancer, murder... the list could go on.

    So on that basis:
    Is he able to prevent this? Omipotent - Yes Omnibenevolent - No = Paradox (Malevolent)
    Is he willing to prevent this? Omnipotent - No Omnibenevolent - Yes = Paradox (Not all powerful)

    This is only relevant to Gods from religion though. It doesn't refute a creator God. Not that i believe that either.
    I don't think it's relevant to the God of any religion either really.

    'Evil' is a subjective concept. Whether something is 'good' or 'evil' is a matter of opinion, depending on whether it pleases you or displeases you.

    If by 'malevolent', you simply mean that God is willing to do things or permit things to happen that displease us (i.e. evil), then pretty much all theists believe in this particular God. So your conclusion that he is 'malevolent' doesn't particularly go against what they already believed in. I'd just say "if you want to call him that, go ahead". Most religious people would agree that God does some things that we like, and some things that we don't like.

    Yes, some theists say that God is 'benevolent'. But if you ask them what they mean by that, I don't think they'll tell you "He doesn't allow a single displeasing thing to happen, ever". They'll usually mean something else, which is not opposite to the type of 'malevolence' you're referring to.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ummm)
    Maybe 'god' shouldn't have created such an imperfect world that it is unable to sustain the space and resource requirements of the human race? Why would an all-loving god allow his 'precious creations' to be murdered and slaughtered and killed through natural causes? How does he pick those 'special few' who die in such unfortunate circumstances?
    Tell me:

    (1) Does "God" create random babies and place it on Earth for someone to find?

    (2) Who is in charge of all the natural resources on Earth, "God" or man?

    (3) Why does "man" choose to kill himself if he really "loves life"?

    (4) Who "murders and slaughters" other people, "man" or God?

    (5) Is "man" not in charge of his mental faculties that he does not know what he is doing? Can "man" not distinguish between "right and wrong"?

    EDIT: Seems the Atheist neggers is out on patrol today. If you don't like my method of questioning, you should inform your Atheist Brethren not to make stupid statements!!!!
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by squishy123)
    How would scientists explain "the world increases 2x every time the population increases 4x" phnomena?
    Actually don't know what you have just said.

    Could you clarify for me?
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Nothing at all.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by squishy123)
    (1) Let's say for arguments sake, that God is present and is up there in the sky.

    (2) Let us say that he is in charge of everything (omnipotent).


    Now consider this scenario. If there was no disease, no suffering, cancer, murder, starvation, wars (and all the other things that Atheists claim "why does God not prevent this?") tell me what the population of the world would be?

    It sounds callous but stop and think about it. If not one person in the world died from "natural disasters", cancer, starvation, murder etc, would the world be overcrowded? If people are saying TODAY THAT THE WORLD IS OVERCROWDED, imagine if no one suffered or died from an "unnatural death".
    Let's liken the world to a household. Single father, has too many children. When they get old enough, he wants them to leave so he has space for his children and maybe raise some more when he somehow reproduces (he's asexual for the purposes of this example). Suddenly, he decides it's time for one of his kids to leave. So rather than just packing up their stuff, waving them goodbye, and wishing them luck for the future, he tortures them and abuses them in front of the whole family before they leave. He breaks their legs so they can't walk, and he beats them in the chest so it hurts to breathe. But then they're free to go! See ya later, son 'o mine. Have fun in that giant, unknown world out there.

    Why does God let people go through so much pain and suffering when he could just simply let them die painlessly? I consider that malevolent. Society would see that as an abuse father who deserves to go to prison and not fit to have responsibility for his children. How is the God you know any different from the abusive father in the story above?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheRustaman)
    Not a great analogy. As we have empirical evidence for a mother, whereas we have none for god.

    Anyway, this just seems to suggest your God is - "A God Of Blanks". Where phenomena that we have yet to explain is just explained by "God".

    I prefer this picture.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	epicurus-quote.jpg 
Views:	833 
Size:	38.4 KB 
ID:	145837
    no, this is completely off. God purposely allows evil to exist, if he didn't allow evil to exist then life for the believers wouldn't be a test of faith. That is the whole point.

    I actually like the picture in the OP, it shows how naive we are, analogized by the two babies who are in a lower state of intelligence, we are their 'God'.

    I'm an agnostic, btw.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 24, 2012
New on TSR

TSR Freshers' blogs 2014

Read what TSR's freshers have to say as they head off to uni

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.