Is religion about avoiding reality?

[zyzygy]

So after repeated posts asking you why God gives children cancer the answer is eventually that you don't know.

That is a sad way to debate.

Given the fact that no possible signals from a god have ever been detected the answer is that cancer just happens and there is no god. My mind could be changed by evidence.

 

[zyzygy]

Debate what?

Does God give children cancer? It's an easy question to understand. I know why you are avoiding it.

 

[code1211]

Does God give children cancer? It's an easy question to understand. I know why you are avoiding it.

Do you think that I know how or what God thinks or why God does what he does or if he even cares if individuals get sick or not?

If I indicated in any way that I have any access to the motivations of God, I apologize. I do not.

What in the world made you think that I do?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Debate what?

Come on Code, you are better than this.

The thread, the debate here, when you were asked does God cause children to get cancer? You dodged the question repeatedly. That is a sad way to behave.

 

[Daisy]

You won't look at any of the evidence. You won't read a science textbook. You won't read any of the major reports. You won't listen to what all the major science institutions worldwide say. You think you know more with your grade school arithmetic than all the experts. You can't even explain basics like how the 'greenhouse' effect actually works without getting it wildly wrong -showing you don't know what **** you're talking about. You demand ridiculous 'proofs'.

You mock scientists and anyone who knows far more about the science than you do and you try to claim climate science is a religion. You repeat nonsense from conspiracy blogs. You believe in ridiculous evidence-free conspiracies and pseudoscience like your claim that tens of millions of people a year are dying because of biofuels. You refuse to listen when people try to use evidence to show that your claims are wrong.

That's pretty much why most rational people on the Climate forum don't bother to try anymore to discuss any science with you. It's like trying to talk about evolution with a Creationist - a waste of time.

Interesting...:thinking

 

[code1211]

Come on Code, you are better than this.

The thread, the debate here, when you were asked does God cause children to get cancer? You dodged the question repeatedly. That is a sad way to behave.

How could I possibly know the answer to that question?

 

[Dragonfly]

The flaw I see in the story is in the beliefs of the drowning man.

Yes. He's a believer. He has faith. In "god".

That's a rather HUGE flaw isn't it?

 

[zyzygy]

How could I possibly know the answer to that question?

You say that you know that your god exists and is omnipotent. Does he enjoy watching children suffer? If he has the power to cure them and doesn't bother then he is an evil being not worthy of anyone's worship. Not to mention why he gives them cancer in the first place. Only a psychopath would do that.

 

[Tim the plumber]

How could I possibly know the answer to that question?

Your eventual answer was that you don't know.

Don't know is obviously a decent answer.

Not answering is not a decent debate style.

 

[zyzygy]

Yes. He's a believer. He has faith. In "god".

That's a rather HUGE flaw isn't it?

Especially if it's the wrong god.

 

[zyzygy]

Your eventual answer was that you don't know.

Don't know is obviously a decent answer.

Not answering is not a decent debate style.

But would he be willing to guess? What motive could a god have for giving a child cancer?

 

[Omega Man]

What makes written assertions evidence?

They are a form of documentary evidence. The very fact that there are so many biblical literalists demonstrates this. It may not be convincing to you or I, but proof and evidence are two separate things.


OM

 

[zyzygy]

How could a loving and holy God allow a baby to suffer a debilitating disease? I think the answer is partly contained in that very question. God is holy, and in His holiness He exercises judgment against the wickedness that is prevalent in human nature. When we ask the question with respect to infants, sometimes lurking behind that question is the unspoken assumption that babies are innocent.

Why would a loving and holy God allow a child to suffer through a serious illness such as cancer?

Oh dear, oh dear. The mental hoops that believers have to jump through!

 

[zyzygy]

My youngest daughter was born with a brain tumour. This did not come to light until she was seven. Her motor skills were not developing and she had very bad eyesight. A scan revealed the problem and she had ten-hour operation. Her life was saved by a team of dedicated surgeons and not by prayer. If I had left it up to a god then she would be dead. The idea that she was born guilty is complete nonsense.

 

[devildavid]

Apparently, I can't explain it to you.

You seem to be consumed with the analogy.

Let me ask you:

Is there ANYTHING in your life experience that has affected you in varying ways at different times? Perhaps, if there is, then that would be a better analogy for you.

Music was a good one for me.

I've heard that there are examples of people who grow into or out of allergies. People who start to like a certain food later in life that they detested as a child and vice versa.

How the world affects us changes as our perceptions change or our physical being changes. It's not a measure of anything good or bad, superior of inferior. It just is.

You are the one consumed with analogies.

Physical changes as we age are not analogous to experiencing god, however you think that is done. An analogy would be that music was always around and our ears worked but for a non physical reason we could not hear it or perceive of it. I have never heard of that happening. God is not a matter of our physical bodies changing or developing or losing a physical condition.

 

[Omega Man]

My youngest daughter was born with a brain tumour. This did not come to light until she was seven. Her motor skills were not developing and she had very bad eyesight. A scan revealed the problem and she had ten-hour operation. Her life was saved by a team of dedicated surgeons and not by prayer. If I had left it up to a god then she would be dead. The idea that she was born guilty is complete nonsense.

Thank you for your personal testimonial. I do hope that your daughter went on to live a healthy life?


OM

 

[devildavid]

Do you think that I know how or what God thinks or why God does what he does or if he even cares if individuals get sick or not?

If I indicated in any way that I have any access to the motivations of God, I apologize. I do not.

What in the world made you think that I do?

Yet you do think that god was motivated to help you.

 

[devildavid]

They are a form of documentary evidence. The very fact that there are so many biblical literalists demonstrates this. It may not be convincing to you or I, but proof and evidence are two separate things.


OM

But not all documentary information is evidence of something, is it?

 

[zyzygy]

Thank you for your personal testimonial. I do hope that your daughter went on to live a healthy life?


OM

She's thirty now and doing very well, thanks

 

[zyzygy]

You are the one consumed with analogies.

Physical changes as we age are not analogous to experiencing god, however you think that is done. An analogy would be that music was always around and our ears worked but for a non physical reason we could not hear it or perceive of it. I have never heard of that happening. God is not a matter of our physical bodies changing or developing or losing a physical condition.

Gods are inventions of mankind.

 

[zyzygy]

Do you think that I know how or what God thinks or why God does what he does or if he even cares if individuals get sick or not?

If I indicated in any way that I have any access to the motivations of God, I apologize. I do not.

What in the world made you think that I do?

So you are not a Christian? No heavenly father? No loving god?

 

[Omega Man]

But not all documentary information is evidence of something, is it?

If it lays the foundation for a premise, then it is considered documentary evidence. Whether or not the premise is factual is irrelative.


OM

 

[zyzygy]

If it lays the foundation for a premise, then it is considered documentary evidence. Whether or not the premise is factual is irrelative.


OM

True. One person's fact is another person's myth.

 

[devildavid]

If it lays the foundation for a premise, then it is considered documentary evidence. Whether or not the premise is factual is irrelative.


OM

How would a document lay the foundation for a premise and why again does this make it evidence?

 

[zyzygy]

How would a document lay the foundation for a premise and why again does this make it evidence?

Christians consider the Bible to be evidence but it's not the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law.