Ben Stein Expelled

[Mimirswell]

Originally Posted by Asmadai

Epicurus didn't say that btw. David Hume did. (Albeit due to his interest in the Epicurean Riddle.)

An entirely pointless technicality as it is virtually the exact same phrasing of the original. Here's an ancient example in Latin (Epicurus's writings didn't survive to modern times but were still in existent when quoted by multiple sources):

Originally Posted by Lactantius, De Ira Dei (240 CE)

"God, Epicurus says, either wishes to take away evils and is unable to, or is able but is unwilling, or he is unable and unwilling. If he is willing and unable, he is feeble. If he is able and unwilling, he is cruel. If is unwilling and unable, he is both feeble and cruel; therefore, he is not god. If he is both willing and able, then from what source does evil arise?"

Only difference is word choice (unable becomes not omnipotent and unwilling becomes not omnibenevolent, etc.).

[Asmadai]

Seriously not asking to be a smart ass, but what God do you feel he was referring to, and why?

Based on the defined qualities of the Judaism/Christian 'God' (the whole omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) I would assume by his statement, and given his years of life that he was referring to the Judaism 'God'. You obviously feel different, and feel he was referring to 'God' in a more general term.

I'm asking for what leads you to this conclusion, as I haven't studied other religions enough to recall any one of them that has a singular 'God' (and not 'god' or 'gods') which shares the same qualities as the one referenced by the quote and also of the Judaism/Christian belief.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Asmadai

Seriously not asking to be a smart ass, but what God do you feel he was referring to, and why?

The Epicurean paradox is referring to the ideal of evil and is not talking about any one God or set of Gods. During the time of it's creation, Epicurus was in a place where most were god-fearing of the traditional Greek Pantheon.

So if you MUST have an answer, he was talking about Zeus.

[Schatze]

Since "God" usually refers to a specific singular entity of a unique nature, it applies to any monotheistic religion.

Since "god" usually refers to one god among many, it would be a referent to any polytheistic religion or an agnostic/atheist referring to "God" but not having any belief in one "God", therefore not using the proper noun form.

But that's just the Western English way of doing it. When you factor in religious/translation differences, it becomes highly clouded. Applying your own conventions to someone who lived over 2000 years ago and spoke a language highly removed from modern English would be folly. However, based on probability, he was probably, as the above post mentioned, referring to the Greek pantheon and not Judaism. Judaism's historical importance tends to get severely inflated due to its relationship with Christianity.

Hell, it still is, because without 1000 years of Christian anti-Semitism eventually culminating in the holocaust (yeah, Ben Stein pulled a "no, u" in his film) Israel would have never been formed, and Judaism would never have skyrocketed to the importance it has today. There are religions with 10-100x the followers as Judaism and most people in Western world wouldn't be able to name them.

[Arbitrary]

The Problem of Evil is a bitch, there is no doubt.

[Mimirswell]

The reason the text says God instead of gods is because Lactantius converts the paradox into a monotheistic form (the only change is gods to god) because De Ira Dei an apologetic against Epicureanism (who 400 years later no longer bothers arguing against the pantheon that's long dead but following the inceptor of their philosophy, challenge all religio where they find it (religio during the creation of Epicurean philosophy meant "to bind fast", "place an obligation on", that it later becomes religion we know is interesting from an etymological view though not necessarily a negative connotation).

However, Epicurus lived in Athens, Greece in 341-270 BCE. He's talking about the Greek and Roman Pantheons (who took Greece from the Macedonians during his lifetime) and nothing else. He was born while Aristotle was still alive (this is the height of Hellenic culture) and he certainly didn't take time to debunk Judaism which he likely never encountered in his life.

[Chrisb3]

Wow it took a whole page of posts to convince someone than an ancient greek wasn't talking about the christian god.

[Flinch]

Originally Posted by Schatze

Well, since Southern Ontario harbors a third of the total Canadian population, and Toronto is in the center of everything (in ontario... and the universe!), the bigots will turn out for events. But when you compare a few hundred people protesting a Pride parade and a million or two dancing around in assless chaps (... only some people) it puts things in perspective. Or when tens of thousands of stoners descend on Queen's Park to have a smoke in, etc.

Quebec has a long history of Catholicism, and most urban Quebecois are intensely bitter about said history. The rural Quebecois still are the "12 children" type Catholics.

Anyways, Toronto has a Pride parade that over a million attend and Calgary... Has the stampede. But honestly I just mentioned Alberta because Saskatchewan and Manitoba get lumped in with it. Yeah, I know, screw Ontario and FUCK TORONTO and all that :P

And remember, it was Alberta and co. who pushed the Canadian alliance and Stockwell Day. And Harper had to make the token effort to sort of kinda maybe challenge the gay marriage legalization but not really to appease his base without pissing everyone else off.

Yeah, I know, but with the reputation that Alberta has (hell, remember the Keegstra case? Lollercaust denier...) would make you think that there'd be some sort of presence.

I dunno. Maybe big cities attract more of the batshit insane element and smaller/largely rural areas tend to attract the Hot Fuzz/Deliverance types. Alberta is generally far more racist, I'll say that much.

[Schatze]

Yeah, it is honestly more a break down of urban versus rural. Except then that gets complicated because of the population distribution of Canada.

[Zerai]

Originally Posted by Asmadai

And where are all the clever pictures poking fun at an organized religion that isn't Christianity?

Oh that's right - there aren't any. Weird.

Because..go outside. 9/10 religious people you will encounter are christian. Since most all of us live in europe or north america. We have sizable jewish and islamic populations but still, christians are who we encounter. Most of us have grown up with christianity either in our house or in our schools.

Also, to me, they are all the same, so really, if I say anything about a god, it's all of them. Say what you will, but they really are the same religion with different spins.

[Eomer]

I dunno. Maybe big cities attract more of the batshit insane element and smaller/largely rural areas tend to attract the Hot Fuzz/Deliverance types. Alberta is generally far more racist, I'll say that much.

Just wondering what's given you that impression? I mean yeah you run into the occasional fucking moron, but overall I've never experienced or witnessed much overt, let alone systemic, racism in Alberta.

Unless it's about natives.

[Eliyahu FoR]

Originally Posted by Millie

I don't care if it's the Abrahamic God, the Hindu gods, or freaking Quetzalcoatl. It's just silly creation myths that are fine, and have their place, and certainly comfort people. But there is no basis for fact behind any of that stuff

That's a stellar statement of arrogance. You "believe" there is no basis of fact. I doubt you are all-knowing though. Apparently billions of people in this world would disagree with you, along with not a few in the scientific community who have multiple advanced degrees and years of research in their respective fields. It must be nice to fully exalt your belief system over that of another by claiming with finality that there is no basis of fact in it.

Science is inquiry into the observable and the real; religion is inquiry into the unseen and the spiritual. Those two fields of thought can exist side by side, but we shouldn't start allowing one side to dictate the affairs of the other.

Please illuminate me on what is observable and real about evolution? I'm waiting. Oh that's right, we haven't observed any single instance of one species mutating into another. Not a single one. We have not uncovered ONE SINGLE transition fossile. Darwin himself said that the fossile record would make or break his theory but he was sure that given the time and technology we would prove him correct. Here we are, 150 years after Darwin and still we've come up with not a single bit of fossile evidence of evolution. We didn't observe the Big Bang, therefore it's not observable. We can't recreate it, therefore it fails in the scientific method you espouse. Nothing about evolutionary "science" falls under the strict definition of science. That's the issue.

The truth of the matter is that you must rely on faith no matter which side of the argument you fall on. Do you want to believe evolution? Great, believe it and use that belief as lens to filter all information and evidence you see. If you believe we were created by a higher power then use that. There may be great arguments on both sides of the coin, but to entirely disregard another's viewpoint and not allow it to be heard is the height of arrogance. To force your view of the origin of species because that's what you "believe" without allowing dissent shows a fear that your belief may be disproved. If you think evolution and a Godless existence is 100% truth then more power to you. If you truly believe that then allow other lines of argument and thought to challenge that so that the truth can be brought to light. If your understanding is indeed true then the argument and debate will only further illucidate that to the masses. Counter opinions are the tools that hone our understanding of the truth.

[lendarios]

Originally Posted by Eliyahu FoR

Please illuminate me on what is observable and real about evolution? I'm waiting. Oh that's right, we haven't observed any single instance of one species mutating into another.

MicroBiology would like to speak with you.

[UnchainedAcolyte]

Originally Posted by Eliyahu FoR

That's a stellar statement of arrogance. You "believe" there is no basis of fact. I doubt you are all-knowing though. Apparently billions of people in this world would disagree with you, along with not a few in the scientific community who have multiple advanced degrees and years of research in their respective fields. It must be nice to fully exalt your belief system over that of another by claiming with finality that there is no basis of fact in it.

Fail rebuttal is fail.

Russell's Teapot

Logical Fallacy - Appeal to Popularity


There is a minor point on the basis of some atheists stating "God does not exist" versus "There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God". Still, scientifically, weight lies with the skeptic/atheist argument due to lack of observable evidence.

Next time research and give examples, with documentation.

C-/D+

[Eliyahu FoR]

Originally Posted by UnchainedAcolyte

Still, scientifically, weight lies with the skeptic/atheist argument due to lack of observable evidence.

The problem with this debate is that one's conclusion is already assumed and all evidence is filtered through that lens.

You say weight lies with the atheist argument due to lack of evidence. Someone believing God created things as he said he did in the bible look to nature and the order of things and see evidence pointing to the existence of a creator God.

One starts with the belief of no god and goes about seeing life in a way that reinforces that belief. Everything in this worldview says "I see how it happened without a god" thereby creating the lack of observable evidence you say exists. Another starts with a belief of a creator God and the same logic applies.

My main point is that it takes a huge amount of faith on both sides of the coin. Neither side has seen God and neither side has observed creation/evolution. Both must take on faith that what they are observing in the world reinforces their original belief system.

To say the matter is settled and one faith system triumphs over another is akin to setting up state sponsored religion in schools. This time it is the religion of the godless in the clothing of "science". If you want to come out and say that's the case, then I don't have a problem with it. Let's call it what it is though, one faith based system at odds with another.