Friends getting religious

[Pete]

Yeah, if there was no survival of the fittest, we'd all still be in a primordial ooze.

Right, I'll remember that when I'm practicing medicine. "Sorry, mate, it wouldn't be right to treat you. Survival of the fittest, ya know?"

At the risk of evoking Godwin's law, I'd like to remind you of your own arguments against regimes that get their morality from Darwinian evolution.

 

[Pete]

Sam, do you really want to be on the record as saying that it is wrong to give treatment to children with cancer?

 

[S.A.M.]

Right, I'll remember that when I'm practicing medicine. "Sorry, mate, it wouldn't be right to treat you. Survival of the fittest, ya know?"

At the risk of evoking Godwin's law, I'd like to remind you of your own arguments against regimes that get their morality from Darwinian evolution.

Thats okay, Darwinian evolution does not work for those regimes, or haven't you noticed?

Sam, do you really want to be on the record as saying that it is wrong to give treatment to children with cancer?

Of course not, we're discussing what God should do. There is a difference between man and God.

 

[Pete]

Thats okay, Darwinian evolution does not work for those regimes, or haven't you noticed?

Since you're applying the morality of those regimes to God, what does that suggest?

Of course not, we're discussing what God should do. There is a difference between man and God.

Surely there is. Does that difference extend to morality?
You asked me what I would do for my children as a loving father, with the implication that God would apply the same logic. Why would you do that, if we are so different?

I'll ask again:
What is benevolence, for God?
Do individuals matter, or is each simply a clump of ooze to be tested, torn, and disdained, so that the "grand plan" can be achieved by the most misguided and tortuous means imaginable?

 

[S.A.M.]

Since you're applying the morality of those regimes to God, what does that suggest?

I'm not. I'm questioning that you think there is a common standard all around. Do you think animals are immoral? The entire basis of civilised society is the rejection of animal instinct, is animal instinct immoral and wrong?

Surely there is. Does that difference extend to morality?
You asked me what I would do for my children as a loving father, with the implication that God would apply the same logic. Why would you do that, if we are so different?

To highlight the immaturity of the question. ie. if benevolence = preventing pain, how far would you go to prevent pain?

I'll ask again:
What is benevolence, for God?
Do individuals matter, or is each simply a clump of ooze to be tested, torn, and disdained, so that the "grand plan" can be achieved by the most misguided and tortuous means imaginable?

No idea. But I don't think that anthropomorphising a God you don't believe in will get you anywhere.

 

[(Q)]

But you don't believe in God, so how can you believe in his ability to create or cure?

On no, here we go down Sam's maze of ratholes, again.

Islamic claims, Sam, the cult to which you belong. Duh.

Yes I did, I have no problem with a God who allows things to progress logically.

Of course, and as usual, you contradict Islam when it suits your agenda. You'll now most likely deny that Allah created everything?

Only because we have different notions of what God should be doing perhaps.

No, only because you distract from question posed to you, questions you are unable to honestly answer.

So you would not choose it.

You're asking me if I would choose pain? Who cares? What point are you making?

What purpose does life serve?

From an Islamic perspective? To serve your god, of course.

Aside from that, there does not appear to be a universal purpose to life, it just "is", like everything else.

 

[Bishadi]

Since mankind progresses by abandoning instinct in favour of intelligence how do you suppose instinct to be law of nature?

mankind progressing was not an abandonment of instinct; that is just stupid otherwise you would not have a 'self purposed' heart beat.

procreation, cell division, breathing

dahhhhhhhhhhhhh

What is a "law" of "nature"?

to continue (life: purposed to continue)

the cycles are what we observe then try and define; as a species; with the words WE created

(ultimate acheivement of mankind; mass comprehending its existence!)

What is law?

principle defined by mankind

any definitions for the process of nature are all just 'created' renditions by mankind (even every religion is a creation from mankind, just as every word is)

What is nature?

a word to define existence;

to some, a garden; to another, 'the mother' to all life; for a few just a concept to think on.

in a true scope; we all from mother nature, the garden, the universe/existence................ some like to call her God!

 

[S.A.M.]

Aside from that, there does not appear to be a universal purpose to life, it just "is", like everything else.

Is that your view of your life? Its a purposeless existence that just "is"?

 

[Pete]

To highlight the immaturity of the question. ie. if benevolence = preventing pain,

You've done a good job of highlighting your immaturity of interpretation, Sam.
Do you really think that I meant such a simplistic equality?

No idea.

Really? Then why pretend you do? Why pretend to have such a superior perspective of what god is, when you neither share that perspective with me not attempt to understand what I am prepared to consider about the nature of God?

 

[Pete]

Why do you think that God is benevolent, if you have no idea what that means?

 

[S.A.M.]

You've done a good job of highlighting your immaturity of interpretation, Sam.
Do you really think that I meant such a simplistic equality?



Really? Then why pretend you do? Why pretend to have such a superior perspective of what god is, when you neither share that perspective with me not attempt to understand what I am prepared to consider about the nature of God?

I applied logic. I do not anthropomorphise God and judge his benevolence by the random decimation of cancer ridden children. And even if I were to anthrpomorphise God, I do not judge a scientist by his random decimation of cancer ridden rats [in most cases induced by the scientists]. Its illogical.

 

[Pete]

How do you judge God's benevolence?
How can you distinguish benevolence from malevolence, in the case of God?

 

[S.A.M.]

Why should you? I've never understood why God has to be a micromanager or why anyone has to obsess on it. Isn't it pointless to speculate on what you have a very limited knowledge of?

Benevolence of God to me is manifest in the delicate balance of nature. Every action has a consequence, no matter how small. Thats micromanagement enough.

 

[Pete]

So you have no way of knowing whether God is benevolent or malevolent?

 

[S.A.M.]

Not in the human sense. Just as you have no way of knowing whether your cheery boss beats his wife.

 

[Pete]

Then why do you believe that God is benevolent?

 

[S.A.M.]

As I said previously, for me the benevolence of God is expressed in the balance of nature. We are protected from the consequences of our actions because we pay for them.

 

[Pete]

Why is that benevolence, and not malevolence?

 

[S.A.M.]

For the same reason that law is civics and not tyranny. You can apply the model to a parent for anthropomorphic parallels

 

[Pete]

So you do seem to have some idea of how to judge God's benevolence.
To what does God's benevolence apply, in your opinion? The universe? Earth? Living things? Humans as a whole? Individuals?

Also, how you distinguish benevolence from indifference?