Funny anti-religious Internet pics

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Jesus was a problem child

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[zoltanspawn]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Offered in the sense of funny anti-literalist internet pics...





Not my usual style.

 

[Kyanimal]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Since I'm too lazy to meld this into a single meme, how about a triptych?

​

​

​

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

One minute, you state evil is a consequence of making free choices, the next that choice doesn't bear on the situation. Now, the problem is actually a different vague concept, that of supernatural fealty...regarding interference...with us...about something...

There are no "vague concepts" involved. There's nothing vague about free will. It isn't about >making free choices", it's about there being choice.

Your sloppiness here reminds me of philosophy 101, when no one has learned to keep concepts distinct and clear yet. The existence of choice and the making of choices are two entirely different things; one of them affects the nature of reality, the other only alters details of that reality.

If you ask me, a god that willingly allows foot-roasting has bigger problems than a reputation for half-baked promises. Personally, I'd take the half-baked promises if I were you.

Only if you hold untrustworthiness as a virtue. Besides which, you're indulging in anthropomorphism here, as though God had a choice to not be true to Himself or to be other than what He is.

There's no comparison in my statement, God chooses to do nothing to stop children from being tortured to death because we haven't comported ourselves with his wishes? so this is nonsense.

You're saying it's nonsense to point out the nature of your argument?

You're poking at marginal details and using them to insist that the unchangeable would be improved if it could change.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

The reason Job in the bible is so brilliant is because it recognizes the realness of this problem.

It recognizes the realness of the problem in the human mind. One of the major points of Job is that all the human thinking possible isn't going to resolve the apparent contradiction, that we are in a position akin to humans with no relativity theory (or a capacity for one) who just observed light bend.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Your underlying premise seems to be, as is purported by most Modern religions, that God is actively watching over, and keeping track of, Everything that is happening in Creation. He is, additionally, capable of intervening, directing, manipulating, Everything that transpires, right down to the tiniest of details.

In other words, We, and Everything around Us, are under His Control through the Grace of His divine Will. That premise completely negates any concept the He granted US Free Will.

That view goes even further to give Us a convenient excuse to justly deny our Own Responsibility, and Culpability, for Our actions and inactions. "That has nothing to do with Us/Me because God let it happen."

I have to respectfully disagree with that basic contention.

The perhaps bigger issue is that his position requires that God be far more than "purported by most Modern religions", making Him into a busybody breaking natural law right and left -- and for what? where do we draw the line? If a child getting its feet burned off demands divine intervention, the what about a sunburn with blisters? or a sunburn without blisters?

There's a strain of thought from Buddhism that only those who have suffered have the capacity to appreciate enlightenment. That is echoed in Christian thought, and not just by the mystics, either. So to reduce us all to puppets where God intervenes every time something might hurt would be to deny us the very thing we were supposedly created for: transcendence.

The view is repugnantly inane when spouted by a preacher in the notion that "God has the perfect match for you" out there in the world, and no less so when demanded in order to satisfy someone's objection to one or another sort of evil.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

The last thing you'd wanna do, given what's come out...

Actually the latest figures indicate that Roman Catholic priests are less likely to be pedophiles than the general population, if that's what you're aiming at.

Now if your son is of age, and thinks the priest is cute....

 

[zoltanspawn]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

There are no "vague concepts" involved. There's nothing vague about free will. It isn't about >making free choices", it's about there being choice.

Your sloppiness here reminds me of philosophy 101, when no one has learned to keep concepts distinct and clear yet. The existence of choice and the making of choices are two entirely different things; one of them affects the nature of reality, the other only alters details of that reality.

So it's not about fealty anymore, but about free will again? Let me know when you settle on one particular answer.

Only if you hold untrustworthiness as a virtue. Besides which, you're indulging in anthropomorphism here, as though God had a choice to not be true to Himself or to be other than what He is.

I hold that untrustworthiness would be a lesser fault in a god than malevolence. Besides which, holding liberty as a virtue is "indulging in anthropomorphism, as though God had a choice to not be true to Himself or to be other than what He is."

You're saying it's nonsense to point out the nature of your argument?

You're poking at marginal details and using them to insist that the unchangeable would be improved if it could change.

Your characterization of my argument is nonsense.

Are you now introducing the idea that god is unchanging, and therefore unable to prevent evil?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Point of information: The "Rapture" is arguably a heresy believed only by a small fraction of (very loudmouthed) Christians.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

It recognizes the realness of the problem in the human mind. One of the major points of Job is that all the human thinking possible isn't going to resolve the apparent contradiction, that we are in a position akin to humans with no relativity theory (or a capacity for one) who just observed light bend.

So....why make up all these explanations for evil that aren't adequate?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Ok, back to funny (or somewhat funny) pics.
View attachment 1055185

Okay, your image doesn't want to get bigger -- odd.

Anyway, it brings to mind a discussion I was part of once about that issue: one gal raised the question of whether we'd even recognize such people if we met them in heaven, because all we would know would be the parts that would have to be stripped away. Interesting conjectures were offered, for example the idea that the Dahmer (or whoever) we'd meet in heaven would be like a child, "regressed" back to the last moment of "goodness"....

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

He's being really sloppy about the definition of "truth" here, but apart from that it's a fair point.

OTOH, it applies just as well to God.

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously her god can't grant wisdom to spell correctly.

Spelling is merely knowledge, not wisdom.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Since I'm too lazy to meld this into a single meme, how about a triptych?

View attachment 1055359

Not making graven images isn't a commandment, as is easily demonstrated by the fact that God turns right around and commands them to make such images. It's a comment on the first.

BTW, "I am the Lord thy God" is its own "word" ("commandments" is a problematic translation; "declarations" is better).

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

So it's not about fealty anymore, but about free will again? Let me know when you settle on one particular answer.

"Fealty"? There is no fealty without free will...

I hold that untrustworthiness would be a lesser fault in a god than malevolence.

From a deity, they're the same thing.

And a deity who would do what you require would be demonstrating that every time He stepped in to go against the operating rules He established, violate someone's will, or anything else you demand. I can think of no greater malevolence than for a deity to constantly interfere with every last individual decision disliked by some humans.

Besides which, holding liberty as a virtue is "indulging in anthropomorphism, as though God had a choice to not be true to Himself or to be other than what He is."

"Liberty"? This would be simpler is you'd stop slopping all over the place and introducing new bits.

All I'm doing is adhering to the data.

Your characterization of my argument is nonsense.

No, it isn't -- though I'd be more certain is you;d stay put long enough to make clear what your argument is. You're focusing on minutiae and claiming they have something to do with the substance -- like, taking the fact that a house is painted in chartreuse and vermillion stripes to mean something about how sound the house is structurally.

Your individual choices, my individual choices, are minutiae. They are trivial secondary matters to the issue of evil.

Are you now introducing the idea that god is unchanging, and therefore unable to prevent evil?

No, and no.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

So....why make up all these explanations for evil that aren't adequate?

You have it backwards: it's human attempts to make sense of the explanation that are inadequate.

Your approach is like saying that electrical theory is "inadequate" because people can't understand it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

The perhaps bigger issue is that his position requires that God be far more than "purported by most Modern religions", making Him into a busybody breaking natural law right and left -- and for what? where do we draw the line? If a child getting its feet burned off demands divine intervention, the what about a sunburn with blisters? or a sunburn without blisters?

There's a strain of thought from Buddhism that only those who have suffered have the capacity to appreciate enlightenment. That is echoed in Christian thought, and not just by the mystics, either. So to reduce us all to puppets where God intervenes every time something might hurt would be to deny us the very thing we were supposedly created for: transcendence.

The view is repugnantly inane when spouted by a preacher in the notion that "God has the perfect match for you" out there in the world, and no less so when demanded in order to satisfy someone's objection to one or another sort of evil.

Just an illustration of the very common view:

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[star-warrior]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[zoltanspawn]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

You have it backwards: it's human attempts to make sense of the explanation that are inadequate.

Your approach is like saying that electrical theory is "inadequate" because people can't understand it.

I've got news for you. The explanation that evil is a consequence of free will is a human idea.

If, on the other hand, the explanation is adequate, how would you know that?

You just said you can't.

Do you have some sort of privileged access to god?