Sooo... just to be clear: If you bring up some iron age nonsense and I address it, I'm committing a strawman? I wasn't the one to bring those people up, you were. The difference between Epicurus and those religidiots was that they decided to tell people what god wanted and Epicurus merely followed a line of reasoning that showed the concept to be false. No strawman is needed to show the silliness of a "prophet" that tells you what is right and wrong (objectivity itself is the silly problem there). If you can't grasp the difference between philosophy, religion, intellect, and strawmen , well...
On Mar 16, 5:22 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Ohhh come on Fidds, don't change track now. > > You said: > > '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' > > 'Subscribing to his thoughts', is obviously what I'm talking about > here. Take your man of straw over there, yes right there, put him in > that pile and leave him to compost. > > On 15 Mar, 21:06, 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 -- 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
