Fidd: Both Jesus and Mohamed did exist and their reasoning is sound in what they had to say.. although it does not meet your standards for sound reasoning. I have yet to see your proof as to the validity of your reasoning,, am still waiting for you to provide your proof backing your statements.. Allan
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:06 PM, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > It's not about someone being "great" or not. It's about attacking > someone for folllowing a valid line of reason. Jebus and mohamed did > not follow reasoning, they (i use the plural although there is no > evidence of one of them ever existing) made declarations of what a > supernatural being told them must be done and other such silliness. > > > On Mar 15, 5:28 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hahahahahh ohhh Fidds you are a one. > > > > So it is NOT okay to demean another for beliving in the thoughts of > > somebody whom they may see as great? > > > > Does that strecth to those who feel similar towards Jesus, or Mohamed > > I wonder? > > > > Still nice to know that you belive this. > > > > On 13 Mar, 02:49, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > That is possibly the most limited statement I've heard from you and is > > > simply an attack due to, to quote you, > > > > > "> shows his limited hand and an inability to both think for himself > > > and > > > > > > to think outside the box. " > > > > > You have quoted many sources that have far less content and far more > > > baseless assertion, most of which were simply based on ancient > > > superstition rather than thought. > > > As a simple matter, Epicurus is almost poetic in the trueness of this > > > simple statement and you have no right to demean others for > > > subscribing to his thoughts or following the reasoning. > > > > > On Mar 11, 5:11 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 9 Mar, 13:51, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Only the second and third are really worth considering. > > > > > > > Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. > > > > > > > This is not nesiarily logicaly consistant. > > > > > > > Forgive me for getting Star Trechie on ya but I was watching a few > > > > > weeks back an episode of Voyger where Captian Janeway and the > hologram > > > > > of Leonardo DeVinci are trapped on a planet, and the hologram is > > > > > having trouble understanding all the techy things that Janeway can > do. > > > > > > > She asks him to consider that if he was a Sparrow what would he > know > > > > > of the fine arts of humanity. The reply was along the lines of > even > > > > > if a great master spent years explaining it to me, the limits of my > > > > > mind still would not be able to comprehend. > > > > > > > If we posit the existance of a creative God then the very first > > > > > consideration should be that such a being is greater than > ourselves. > > > > > So to attribute the human label of malevolent to such a being is > not > > > > > logicaly sound. > > > > > > > Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh Evil? > > > > > > > Evil comes from the acts of humanity. Can we call an earthquake > evil? > > > > > > I tend to agree with Lee, for the most part, on this. Evil is a > > > > perception of ours due to our viewing any event within a limited > > > > context. Of course, I wouldn't limit that perception to only humans. > > > > Any being of a certain level of intelligence may perceive evil. A > dog > > > > that is habitually abused may view that abuser as evil. But, I can't > > > > confirm that without having a conversation with said dog. And I'm > not > > > > holding my breath on that. But I wouldn't say that the perception is > > > > impossible. > > > > > > On another note, though, the creation of the perception of evil/ > > > > malevolence most definitely comes from God, so, in that respect, > > > > malevolence has divine origins. Also, if the universe is but a > single > > > > omnipotent entity, then that entity must, at the same time be both > the > > > > "Most Malevolent" and the "Most Benificent" entity, as there is no > > > > other. One thing is for certain, God is, most assuredly, omnipotent > > > > and that requires that He be the ultimate source of any 'malevolence' > > > > perceived. But, as He is also the Most Benificent, there is no one > > > > better to help you, as there is no other who can. Rest assured that, > > > > if another human helps you, it is God that has helped you through > that > > > > human. Equally, if a dog helps you, then it is God that has helped > > > > you through that dog. > > > > > > Epicurus wasn't as bright as he thought he was and, if an individual > > > > (atheist or not) takes refuge in Epicurus' limited views, then he > > > > > Epicurus' views on atoms having the ability > > > > > > to swerve of their own free will has been demonstrated to be absolute > > > > nonsense. And, since his view of 'free will' was based on that, his > > > > view on that falls to the waste pile, as well. He was a man who > > > > taught that one of the purposes of philosophy was to live without > > > > pain, yet died of kidney stones which he admitted caused him "a > > > > painful inability to urinate, and also dysentery, so violent that > > > > nothing can be added to the violence of my sufferings. But the > > > > cheerfulness of my mind, which comes from the recollection of all my > > > > philosophical contemplation, counterbalances all these afflictions." > > > > So, he admitted his pain, yet used his philosophy to counteract it as > > > > best he could. I.e., his final days were steeped in his own > > > > dichotomies. Whilst he tried his best, he still admitted pain, thus > > > > proving that he wasn't the best practitioner of his own teachings. > > > > May he rest in peace!! > > > > > > I hope that last paragraph doesn't come across as an ad hominem > > > > against Epicurus but as a warning to not rely on Epicurus as a valid > > > > argumentarian against God or on atoms or regarding free will. It's > as > > > > intellectually strong as relying on Mark Twain as a source for > > > > information regarding King Arthur. > > > > > > > On 9 Mar, 05:48, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm going to address a few issues when I can, life has taken most > of > > > > > > my attention recently. I will post on the idiots idea of Pascal's > > > > > > wager and all of the silly ideas that it invokes, I simply don't > have > > > > > > the time at the moment. > > > > > > Until then, I'd like you to chew on this quote. Devout theists > > > > > > proclaim this to be a defeated concept, without ever explaining > when, > > > > > > where, or how it was defeated. Christians especially call foul, > yet > > > > > > seem incapable of explaining the foul. An extreme case of irony > > > > > > happens more often than many of you might imagine; wherein a > bible > > > > > > believer declares this to be an out of date writing by an ancient > > > > > > author, one that has no bearing on modern life!!!! hahahaha too > funny > > > > > > and so sad... > > > > > > > > Is God willing to prevent Evil, but not able? Then he is not > > > > > > omnipotent. > > > > > > Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. > > > > > > Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh Evil? > > > > > > Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God? > > > > > > - Epicurus-- Hide > quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > -- ( ) I_D Allan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
