Is God real post your thoughts!

[Guest User]

.

[mmmcannibalism]

Free will.

 

 

 

If I actually have free will then god is not all powerful

 

Care to elaborate?

 

 

 

If I have a choice which god can not predict then he is not all powerful

 

 

 

If god knows what I am going to choos it is not free will because god already made the decision.

 

 

 

So either god is not all powerful and doesnt know what is about to happen, or free will is an illusion.

 

He allowed free choice way back with Adam and Eve of which I don't believe were the first or only humans. Click on a link in my earlier post. Free will exists, and He would know what you are inclined to do. He does not dictate, in my opinion, exactly what you do when you do it. He does however know that you will do it. Get what I'm saying? I almost confused myself.

 

 

 

If god knows what Im going to do ahead of time then the decision has already been made; to have free will independant of god he would have to be unable to know exactly what would happen(obviously im going to sleep within the next 72 hours). If all of history is already laid out by god then we arent making free decisions.

[Guest User]

.

[mmmcannibalism]

Free will.

 

 

 

If I actually have free will then god is not all powerful

 

Care to elaborate?

 

 

 

If I have a choice which god can not predict then he is not all powerful

 

 

 

If god knows what I am going to choos it is not free will because god already made the decision.

 

 

 

So either god is not all powerful and doesnt know what is about to happen, or free will is an illusion.

 

He allowed free choice way back with Adam and Eve of which I don't believe were the first or only humans. Click on a link in my earlier post. Free will exists, and He would know what you are inclined to do. He does not dictate, in my opinion, exactly what you do when you do it. He does however know that you will do it. Get what I'm saying? I almost confused myself.

 

 

 

If god knows what Im going to do ahead of time then the decision has already been made; to have free will independant of god he would have to be unable to know exactly what would happen(obviously im going to sleep within the next 72 hours). If all of history is already laid out by god then we arent making free decisions.

 

No.. The decision is made by you. You have the choice to accept God or not. You have the choice to kill or not. Your choice can be affected by temptations either good or bad.

 

 

 

So did god know the exact structure of this sentence ahead of time or not? If god knows ahead of time that I am going to kill someone then I didnt choose that since it was already destined to happen. If god doesnt know what is going to happen ahead of time then he is not all powerful.

[Guest User]

.

[AlperBacon3]

 

 

 

 

 

I can't answer all but I can try...

 

10. Why are christians supposed to have a different divorce rate? Not all people a right for each other.

 

6. It dates back to Adam and Eve where he gave all people a free will, therefore brings bad to good people.

 

7. The whole part of believeing is things is the thought of believeing it happened, why should there be proof.

 

2. Adam and Eve, read the Holy Book of Genises for more info, to long to explain.

 

1. God will heal amputees in Heaven, where we are glorified.

 

4. God is the creator, why would he give a scientific expanation. God is super-human.

 

3. I do not know what you mean. But I think you mean, not all deaths were caused by God and they were not innocent.

 

Other deaths were just life at Jesus's time, hardships and all.

 

9. Many Christians believe it is a symbol. ( I can't believe you asked this)

 

" This is my body and blood which shall be given onto you." Jesus said this at the Last Supper before he died on the cross. ( I can go on.)

 

8. Are you saying Jesus appeared to all of us. He has only appeared to few beings. ( St. Jaun Diago)

 

5. What are you saying?

 

 

 

10. Wont argue with that.

 

 

 

6. What does freewill have to do with children being born with life ruining conditions or children starving to death in Africa.

 

 

 

7. If I told you I just did a triple backflip to 360 on a pogo stick without proof would you believe it? I find it just as believable as the theory of god.

 

 

 

2. Frankly, the old testament contradicts Christianity so much I don't understand why it is included in the Bible.

 

 

 

1. Why not do it on Earth as there's no proof Heaven exists.

 

 

 

4. There's still no evidence that god created the world other than blind faith and fear to explore the unanswered. Science at least has some form of respected physical effort behind it.

 

 

 

3. Not going to argue on this, I haven't investigated the argument before so there's no point in saying Bull[cabbage].

 

 

 

9. Ye, I'll agree with you on that, pretty stupid questions as it's nothing more than a symbol or a tradition since the days of Christ, 2000 years ago.

 

 

 

8. He's basically arguing many religious figures argue "God and Jesus are all around us within our daily lives", yet there's no logical reasoning behind this.

 

 

 

5. Large areas of the bible seemingly support the idea of slavery, and according to you Christians apparently the Bible is the word of god, so therefore god supports slavery by Christian logic.

 

 

 

You should look up believe nobody knows what is going to happen when we die. Number 8 is close to what we believe as the Holy Trinity God being 3 people all in 1. ( God the Father, God as human Jesus son, and the Holy Spirit.)

[mmmcannibalism]

.. and if I grant you that destiny and fate are actuality, and free will is nonsense, will your argument then be, by having someone kill another, or rape another, so on and so forth, how is he fair? Why would he cause someone to do bad and to thus, in most faiths, be sentenced to eternal suffering? It is just my opinion that free will exists. There are many others that would disagree. Hard to say for sure. Comprehension by humans is limited.

 

 

 

No, my argument ends by proving that the christian god and free will can not coexist.

[Lateralus]

I'm fortunate compared to many others.

 

 

 

Exactly. As unfair as it sounds, hearing tragic stories of suffering of others makes us feel grateful that we don't have that kind of life. If we didn't hear horror stories like that, I have the feeling we'd be a lot less appreciate about our lives than we are now.

 

 

 

Suffering is necessary.

 

 

 

Like having an ugly friend to make you feel good. Pretty disgusting and ultimately a poor design.

 

 

 

Well, I'm not saying we should go out and seek those horror stories like someone with low self-esteem goes out to seek ugly friends. As for this being a poor design, I'd rather live in a world perpetuated by the balance of good and evil than live in a stagnant, uneventful, boring world with neither. It's a price you have to pay, which reminds me of TANSTAAFL in a way.

 

 

 

Just because humans have the ability to complain, I don't see that as a good reason to not believe in god. It's a means of getting us to strive for what we do want which allows for flexibility, individuality, and self-achievement. Some say that the journey is better than the destination. I definitely think this holds true for the never-ending path to happiness.

 

 

 

So how do you feel about heaven? Eternal bliss with no inequality or problems etc. You seem to lean towards deism which is more excusable, but if you believe in one of the popular ideas of heaven then it sounds like you wouldn't have a great time there.

[Zierro]

So how do you feel about heaven? Eternal bliss with no inequality or problems etc. You seem to lean towards deism which is more excusable, but if you believe in one of the popular ideas of heaven then it sounds like you wouldn't have a great time there.

 

 

 

That's one of the very reasons I don't believe in heaven or hell. The way heaven is described, it sounds like it would be a hell to some people since we each have our own unique desires and fears. Heaven and hell appeal to the general population's desires and fears to the extreme, which is why I think they're just tools to sell the religion.

 

 

 

That's not to say that I don't think it's impossible for there to be some sort of afterlife though. If there is, I'm definitely clueless as to what it would be like. I don't like thinking about afterlife much though - I'm completely fine with the idea that this is all we have, make the best of it, you still "live on" through the people you influenced in your lifetime, etc. etc.

 

 

 

The moon is a light source like the sun

 

 

 

It depends on what your definition of light source is. Of course light isn't generated from the moon, but the sun's rays light up the moon which lights up the night sky. Technically a light bulb wouldn't be a light source either - it's the thing inside the light bulb that the light comes from.

[Alg]

Click here for my next argument.

 

 

 

A list of scientific faults in the Bible, including...

 

 

 

The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16).

 

I read the list, and I all I saw were 21st century minds bashing a 2,000 year-old book for not having 21st century facts. Great job you intelligent "freethinkers"... :wall:

[warri0r45]

Click here for my next argument.

 

 

 

A list of scientific faults in the Bible, including...

 

 

 

The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16).

 

I read the list, and I all I saw were 21st century minds bashing a 2,000 year-old book for not having 21st century facts. Great job you intelligent "freethinkers"... :wall:

 

 

 

The point of listing such faults is to argue against people who take the bible as literal scientific truth. It's not arguing against the more rational position that takes it as a flawed document constrained by the knowledge (or lack thereof) of the people who wrote it.

[Zierro]

The point of listing such faults is to argue against people who take the bible as literal scientific truth. It's not arguing against the more rational position that takes it as a flawed document constrained by the knowledge (or lack thereof) of the people who wrote it.

 

 

 

I think the Bible is full of many falsehoods too, but it's counterproductive to the argument to make any tiny thing you find seem like it's nonsense.

 

 

 

"And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."

 

 

 

Notice they didn't emphasize holding the four winds of the earth, but jump on how they "imply" the earth is flat? This sounds clearly like symbolism to me. Either that or they had acid back then.

[Rien]

I'm fortunate compared to many others.

 

 

 

Exactly. As unfair as it sounds, hearing tragic stories of suffering of others makes us feel grateful that we don't have that kind of life. If we didn't hear horror stories like that, I have the feeling we'd be a lot less appreciate about our lives than we are now.

 

 

 

Suffering is necessary.

 

 

 

Like having an ugly friend to make you feel good. Pretty disgusting and ultimately a poor design.

 

I agree. Suffering may bring dynamism to our lives, and a select few may appeciate theirs all the more for it, but where does this leave the ture victims--the impoverished and invalid? Does a starving child appreciate his or her life more for having suffered before perishing of malnutrition? Is a person afflicted by some terrible disease grateful for the opportunity to die a slow, painful, and ultimately meaningless death?

 

Hardships are only "enriching" to those who do not truly know them.

 

 

 

I can't see any greater purpose in our existence. Poverty, disease, and war are starkly prevalent in this world; too many people are born into misery and are made to suffer for the entirety of their brief, wearisome lives. Nothing we can accomplish in our time here is lasting; our works inevitably crumble with time, and even the greatest of us will eventually be forgotten.

 

So why try? Why do anything? As for disease and suffering, research your religions and they are explained in whole as to why they exist. People are not made to do anything. Especially live "wearisome lives." This is why you try. Make better for yourself. But that is besides the point and heading into politics. I Politics.

 

As I explained above, disease and suffering are only "beneficial" to those who have never struggled with some terrible affliction or have had to suffer any serious misfortune. The sick, starving, and downtrodden people of the world are not better off for having to live through their cruel experiences; the only people set to "gain" anything at all from the suffering of others are those forunate enough to not know the true nature of adversity. Drawing satisfaction or appreciation for one's own life from the misery of others is disgusting.

 

 

 

And yes, I don't believe there is any "greater purpose" in life, but that's not to say that I won't attempt to accomplish anything or pursue happiness just because of it. Eventually, I will die and be forgotten before too long afterward, but, because of this, I find all the more reason to do what I can now. It won't matter that my life's works will crumble with time; I'll be dead before then, so I won't be there in witness. I don't have to worry about an afterlife (thankfully, since I wouldn't want to live forever anyway), and in this knowledge I am free to pursue my own goals during my time here. I'll make the most of this life which is the only one I'll have to live; it's all the more precious for there being nothing after death.

 

 

 

I'll create my own meaning in life; I don't require any "greater purpose" to live for.

 

 

 

Why wouldn't stillborn infants be accepted, they are God's creation. And Life begins at the moment of conception.

Why wouldn't sinners be accepted, they are God's creation.

 

According to the Bible, since Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, their children were doomed to be born in sin. Yeah, that's how it sounds; even if a person doesn't sin during their lifetime, by the command of God they'd be cast into the fiery pits of Hell, as they were born human and thus "at fault." Christianity holds that all people are God's Creation--His dearly loved children--but since God also created the fruit which He'd known would be eaten by Adam and Eve along with sin itself, He supposedly sees fit to torture the majority of His children for all eternity. And so, because of this, stillborn infants should be locked away in Hell as they were born in sin and couldn't repent. However, and to answer the original question, God makes an exception for young children by absolving them since they weren't "given the opportunity" to accept Christ (again, according to the Bible), which doesn't make any sense when you think about it. After all, if God can absolve children, then why not accept everyone? Everyone is supposedly a "child of God," so why wouldn't He?

 

 

 

I hope that you can understand--if even just a little better--why atheists and agnostics cannot accept the Bible as truth. The entire concept simply doesn't make sense.

[Guest User]

.

[i_love_burritos]

As one OT'er put it [i believe it was Rebdragon]

 

 

 

Get off your high horse you little dweeb.

 

 

 

Last thing we need on this thread is another 20 pages.

[Guest User]

.

[Zierro]

Hardships are only "enriching" to those who do not truly know them.

 

 

 

And those who survived them. I agree that there are cases where the people suffering get nothing out of it, but you're thinking on a personal level too much instead of extrapolating it to a universal level. Not everyone's going to be happy, but this allows for at least some people to be happy which is better than no one.

 

 

 

Drawing satisfaction or appreciation for one's own life from the misery of others is disgusting.

 

 

 

It's disgusting to be grateful that you're not in their shoes...?

[Rien]

Hardships are only "enriching" to those who do not truly know them.

 

 

 

And those who survived them. I agree that there are cases where the people suffering get nothing out of it, but you're thinking on a personal level too much instead of extrapolating it to a universal level. Not everyone's going to be happy, but this allows for at least some people to be happy which is better than no one.

 

So where is God in this? I agree that suffering greatly benefits mankind as a whole, but what of the "losers" in the process? Am I to believe that God (while supposedly loving everyone on an individual basis) would sacrifice some of his beloved so that those remaining would be able to "appreciate" their lives more as a result?

 

 

 

Drawing satisfaction or appreciation for one's own life from the misery of others is disgusting.

 

 

 

It's disgusting to be grateful that you're not in their shoes...?

 

Yes, I believe so; I find it callous and decidedly naive.

 

 

 

Do you mean to tell me that when you hear a mother telling her child to eat his or her food because "there are starving children in Africa who'd love to have it" that you don't feel disgusted? People today (and particularly those living in post-industrial, "modern" nations) are so often sheltered from reality; they hear of the suffering of millions of people but are removed from it all. It's sickening.

 

 

 

"Yeah, I heard that Africa has a real problem with AIDS and starvation and stuff. I'm sure thankful I'm American!"

 

 

 

"What? You say that Mexicans are spreading Swine Flu everywhere? First it was our jobs and now this! They should be banned from entering the country!"

 

 

 

"Hey, look at that hobo over there. I bet he's begging just so he can go buy some more liquor and drugs; he should get a job, but whatever, it's not my problem. I'm not a nobody like that guy."

 

None of these are "actual" quotes, but I'm sure you've heard similarly ignorant, self-serving statements such as these before. People cushioned from the harsher realities of life can watch charity commercials detailing the horrors faced by many of the world's poor and the dire need for aid, offer their fleeting, hollow pity for people suffering far more than they would ever be able to imagine, and promptly continue--heedless--about their day afterward. The blatant lack of genuine empathy is stunning; it is, in fact, repulsive.

 

 

 

I realize that it wouldn't be realistic to expect everyone to have bleeding hearts for the destitute and miserable, but it's ridiculous how so many can simply be glad for themselves in the knowledge that they're not quite as bad off as the next person. I suppose this behavoir is merely adhering to the adage of "out of sight, out of mind."

 

 

 

Do you understand what I mean? I'm having difficulty describing my feelings adequately in words, but, essentially, I see this form of gratitude as a maddening weakness--one which, at once, serves as both a justification for perceived superiority and an excuse to do nothing in righting the wrongs of the world.

[Zierro]

So where is God in this? I agree that suffering greatly benefits mankind as a whole, but what of the "losers" in the process? Am I to believe that God (while supposedly loving everyone on an individual basis) would sacrifice some of his beloved so that those remaining would be able to "appreciate" their lives more as a result?

 

 

 

My argument was never about the Christian god who claims to love us all equally and be fair. I also never said things were meant to be 100% fair, but rather, as fair as possible.

 

 

 

Do you mean to tell me that when you hear a mother telling her child to eat his or her food because "there are starving children in Africa who'd love to have it" that you don't feel disgusted? People today (and particularly those living in post-industrial, "modern" nations) are so often sheltered from reality; they hear of the suffering of millions of people but are removed from it all. It's sickening.

 

 

 

It's more disgusting to let their suffering go to waste than to make something positive out of it.

 

 

 

My friend dropped a pizza a few weeks ago. Normally, I wouldn't even touch it. But he said something that stuck with me. There are so many people in the world that wouldn't care what happened to the pizza - it's food. I ate the pizza.

 

 

 

Does this mean I want them to be in that situation? No. In fact, I wish they could have the same luxuries I do, but they don't and that's what it comes down to. It's unfortunate that they have to be in that situation, but it's no reason to not appreciate what you have. There's always a bright side to anything horrible. You just have to find it. In no way, shape, or form does this mean you should make bad things happen, it simply means you should make a use of the bad that is inevitably here.

 

 

 

Do you understand what I mean? I'm having difficulty describing my feelings adequately in words, but, essentially, I see this form of gratitude as a maddening weakness--one which, at once, serves as both a justification for perceived superiority and an excuse to do nothing in righting the wrongs of the world.

 

 

 

I never said it was an excuse not to do anything about the problems. In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite. Quit with the strawmanning. You turned my simple statement of, "You can find a bright side to even the worst things in life," and made it into me being a disgusting being with no intention to help anyone out of their poor situations.

 

 

 

I do think we should be charitable, but there is only so much you can do. I can't walk over to Africa and feed every single starving child. However, I can be grateful that I have food at all, no matter it's condition. That's the best I can do with their horrible situation. How you make this into a bad thing really baffles me.

[AlperBacon3]

God lets us make our own desicions, and this is what we all made of his world he gave to us.

[Giordano]

God lets us make our own desicions, and this is what we all made of his world he gave to us.

 

Should of recreated his unflushed toilet and saved us all the time.

[Alg]

Click here for my next argument.

 

 

 

A list of scientific faults in the Bible, including...

 

 

 

The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16).

 

I read the list, and I all I saw were 21st century minds bashing a 2,000 year-old book for not having 21st century facts. Great job you intelligent "freethinkers"... :wall:

 

Don't like the science one?

 

 

 

Inconcistencies in the Bible.

 

A book written by men over centuries is bound to have a few inconsistencies from one writer/editor to another, isn't it?

 

That really is a red herring though, the argument is about the existence of a God, not whether or not the bible is perfect in its details.

[mmmcannibalism]

Click here for my next argument.

 

 

 

A list of scientific faults in the Bible, including...

 

 

 

The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16).

 

I read the list, and I all I saw were 21st century minds bashing a 2,000 year-old book for not having 21st century facts. Great job you intelligent "freethinkers"... :wall:

 

Don't like the science one?

 

 

 

Inconcistencies in the Bible.

 

A book written by men over centuries is bound to have a few inconsistencies from one writer/editor to another, isn't it?

 

That really is a red herring though, the argument is about the existence of a God, not whether or not the bible is perfect in its details.

 

 

 

I would also add that most of those scientific flaws are clearly metaphorical statements. One of the main ones they complain about is saying that people being gathered from the four corners of the earth means the bible says the earth is flat; I think we can all agree that four corners of the earth means from all across the world.

[Rien]

Heh, what's with the "[Caution]?" :?

 

 

 

Anyway, onto my reply:

 

 

 

My argument was never about the Christian god who claims to love us all equally and be fair.

 

Ahh, 'my apologies then. I had assumed we were discussing the suffering of humans in relation to God's purpose. I've said it before, but I agree that mankind benefits from the misery of individuals; I just don't believe that this plan could possibly have been adopted by an all-powerful, ever-loving God, and I had thought that you were arguing otherwise. So I apologize if I made the wrong assumption, but if that is the case, then what were we arguing about to begin with?

 

 

 

I never said it was an excuse not to do anything about the problems. In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite. Quit with the strawmanning. You turned my simple statement of, "You can find a bright side to even the worst things in life," and made it into me being a disgusting being with no intention to help anyone out of their poor situations.

 

What strawmen? I'd appreciate it if you could point out the offending quotes, as I don't see any statement of yours I've misrepresented, and that certainly isn't my intent. I wouldn't intentionally judge someone I don't know--much less attack them in a debate and twist their words to suit my own purpose. Also, I never said that you considered it "an excuse not to do anything about the problems." Again, I don't know you personally, so I wouldn't make that assumption; my point was that many people do, in fact, use it as an excuse. Instead of doing anything to help solve or even mitigate the plethora of problems evident in this world, an astounding number of people simply offer their condolences for the victims and act no further. I don't expect everyone to have bleeding hearts for those less fortunate, but everyone can and should play some small part to help in making the world a better place. It just doesn't happen, though, and that's definitively wrong.

 

 

 

And yes, I do not believe a silver-lining exists in all situations. Perhaps for something as realtively minor as a child catching chickenpox or a teenager losing his or her summer job, I'd be able to understand your viewpoint. After all, the child would develop an immunity to the disease and be protected throughout adulthood (when chickenpox becomes increasingly potent and dangerous), and the teenager would be able to hang out with friends during the break rather than having to work. In these cases I can understand, but what "bright side" are the severely malnourished and terminially ill supposed to see in their situation? Granted, someone dying of cancer could realize that, at the very least, they weren't starving to death, but what kind of silver-lining is that? It would be a delusion meant to console themselves only; it would be similar to unconsciously thinking the following in order to feel better about having to suffer through their own ordeal:

 

"Well, I may be dying slowly of cancer, but at least I'm not starving to death."

That's the weakness I had spoken of earlier--turning to the misfortune of others so that they may shore up their debilitated psyches. I see a crucial difference between being grateful for what one has and being grateful for not being in another's position. I find the above quote despicable in its timidity and unconscious selfishness, while I believe the following, revised quote to be perfectly acceptable and resilient:

 

"Well, I may be dying slowly of cancer, but at least I have my family here to support me."

So, maybe there is a "true" silver-lining to look to in every situation, and if there is, then it's surely to be found in being grateful for the things one already has. You wrote in the previous post that "it's more disgusting to let their suffering go to waste than to make something positive out of it," but I would argue that there is nothing positive in making use of the suffering of others in the first place. Misery isn't a commodity, and utilizing it as such only serves to perpetuate this false truth.

 

 

 

Structural-functionalism, one of the paradigms of sociological study, holds that every construct of society exists to serve some purpose, and that those which lose their purpose in the system will eventually cease to exist. In not letting misery and suffering "go to waste," their existance becomes confirmed, and, as I said above, perpetuated. If we (and by "we" I mean "mankind as a whole") were to refuse to profit from the misery of other people and reject the notion that suffering will always exist and should therefore be made use of, then it all may come to cease. 'Idealistic, I know, but it's a principle I believe we should adhere to; rather than accepting human suffering as inevitable, we should combat and utterly reject the thought--even if it appears to be a futile and overly-optimistic endeavor.

 

 

 

My friend dropped a pizza a few weeks ago. Normally, I wouldn't even touch it. But he said something that stuck with me. There are so many people in the world that wouldn't care what happened to the pizza - it's food. I ate the pizza.

 

I applaud you for this. Your friend was absolutely right; many, many people wouldn't have had a second thought about throwing it away. It's best to be thankful for what we have and remain considerate of others.

 

 

 

I do think we should be charitable, but there is only so much you can do.

 

I know. I wouldn't expect for you or anyone else to solve all of our worldly problems individually, as we've all contributed in the creation and continuation of these problems. If everyone were to play their small part in a communal effort addressing the world's problems, I honestly believe we'd find success in our enterprise, however. But the fact of the matter is that it just doesn't happen, and that is why I find those unwilling to participate despicable.

[Zierro]

Heh, what's with the "[Caution]?"

 

 

 

No idea... I tried everything and they just won't go away.

 

 

 

So I apologize if I made the wrong assumption, but if that is the case, then what were we arguing about to begin with?

 

 

 

It's the problem with evil argument that I'm arguing against. "If this world was created by a god, then why are there so many problems?" I regard these problems as the lesser evil. Either we live in a world with good and bad, or we live in a stagnant world with neither. I think it's unfeasible for it to be purely good or purely bad, just like it's impossible for there to be only up or only down. The term "up" could not exist if there were no such thing as "down". The bad things serve as a reference point to make us understand what is good.

 

 

 

What strawmen? I'd appreciate it if you could point out the offending quotes, as I don't see any statement of yours I've misrepresented, and that certainly isn't my intent. I wouldn't intentionally judge someone I don't know--much less attack them in a debate and twist their words to suit my own purpose. Also, I never said that you considered it "an excuse not to do anything about the problems." Again, I don't know you personally, so I wouldn't make that assumption; my point was that many people do, in fact, use it as an excuse.

 

 

 

Sorry, I thought you were referring to me specifically. You're right. There are exceptions where this mentality creates laziness and lack of sympathy, just as there are exceptions where atheism creates immorality. But correlation doesn't imply causation. You're more arguing about the indifference to the destitute instead of the mentality that there is always a silver lining, just like if someone argued that atheism leads to immoral actions instead of just the immoral actions by themselves. It's a generalization for lack of a better word.

 

 

 

'Idealistic, I know, but it's a principle I believe we should adhere to; rather than accepting human suffering as inevitable, we should combat and utterly reject the thought--even if it appears to be a futile and overly-optimistic endeavor.

 

 

 

That seems just as delusional as searching for the silver lining though. I guess this is where we'll have to agree to disagree. We should try our best to rid the world of these problems, but I don't see a possible way to stop world hunger, unless all of us fat Americans donated half of our food to Africa which just doesn't happen in the real world. It's a false truth.

 

 

 

It might not be impossible forever though. Truthfully, I believe the first step would be to let it be a lesson to us. Being grateful for the floor pizza contributes towards my sympathy towards those who are starving and it contributes towards my personal appreciation. It puts things into perspective and made me think about something I never thought about before. If each and every one of us can have an epiphany like this, I think we'll be heading in the right direction and then maybe us fat Americans will finally reach the point where we will donate a large portion of food to the starving.