I wonder how many clerics (and their parishioners) notice the irony when they close their churches or cancel services because of the coronavirus. Apparently they are convinced that their all-powerful god is powerless against complex molecules.
Christians are not at all convinced God does not have the power to change the molecules of which show the specified complexity, information and teleology evolution cannot answer for even with bad answers.
Of course your rather predictable response would be, "then God created coronavirus you say?"
But no, I don't say that, because God finished the work of creation in creation week and it was all, "very good". In case your brain capacity struggles with the obvious you should be able to see something very easy for even the most unobservant atheist; that such viruses ARISE IN TIME, not at the start of time, and it would be the genetic fallacy to insist they had the same meaning back then as they do now. They obviously didn't, and could have been neutral or symbiotic.
The mutations that occur since then are if anything not a testimony to what mutations can build or design but to the harm they do with defects and diseases. So much for your great inventor.
Of course if you were to ever actually open the bible you will read that Christ's predictions about the world is that people will get worse and negative events will increase on the earth. The prediction is that things will get worse. Christ said and I quote, "in this world you will have tribulation".
CONCLUSION: There is NOTHING in the bible that says that generally speaking the ill effects of the curse will be remedied by God. Christ healed but what's interesting is people still got sick. Sure, He healed them but likely more went unhealed. We see if you actually read the bible about these things that some people Christ encountered such as the woman with an issue of blood, went for very many years BEFORE God healed them.
But there is nothing in the bible which indicates that God NOT healing says anything about God's power since the earth is given over to sin and the world is an unsaved world.
The purpose of the gospel was not to preach the world would be healed, Christ predicted many disasters and negative things would continue until the end of the world, but that the gospel is the preaching of the kingdom of God, where in Revelation we are told that there will be no more disease, sickness, pain, etc....
So I am afraid your little dig/assertion, only shows your complete lack of knowledge pertaining to the theology that deals with this. There is certainly no expectation that the world will get better and a lot of the bad things that will happen in future will be happening very much within God's will.
ADVICE: Using a disease and suffering to act like an opportunist against those of faith is basically LOW moral behaviour in my view. But that's nothing new from the likes of you.
So how about a, "covid-19 and atheism" topic? Why automatically tie covid-19 to religion?
"Religion" logically speaking, is a VERY broad term anyway. For example you can be an atheist pagan that believes crystals heal and be, "religious".
So have you shown that crystals can heal covid-19?
No? Then why would a bible-believing Christian have to logically defend a type of theism which does not incorporate a world of sin and the curse?
Think about that.....why would I have to answer for the "atheists strawman god" when I don't believe the atheist strawman god even exists?
That would be like me expecting you to now show crystals can heal because atheist pagans claim they can.
You need to read my blog which deals with the "atheist strawman god" very well indeed, because the atheist version of god and what he should do, simply is nothing even close to the God of the bible, yet dim-witted atheists keep trying to send us chasing their red-herring by pretending that God is made in THEIR image, and should act as they deem fit.
No, according to the bible you have a twisted, sinful mind and your human level of reason is warped gibberish at best.
You can read more about your STRAWMAN version of God here, where I rip apart the atheist speaker;
If prayer is generally not answered, this would only disprove the atheist strawman god exists, the god they invent so they can knock him down. But since this argument is only a strawman fallacy anyway, and Christians that accept the bible are NOT arguing God would answer all prayer, then this is a WEAK and fallacious argument
mike the wiz writes:
I remember this from an atheist celebration day, an atheist talked about God as a generalised God then explained that according to chance prayers just don't get answered. He used the analogy of God having an email spam box where there were too many requests to deal with.
The problem is logically speaking there is no such thing as the "God of atheists", which is a god that everyone would pray to, and that we would all know, no matter what religion we were from
How appropriate that on Easter we should see that Brad McFall has yet arisen.
In other words, "I don't have any come back, so all I have left is a wise-crack."
We are given an explanation for why the world is the way it is and the bible predicts the world won't change but will get worse. Perhaps mocking God's omnipotence would have more of an effect had the bible said the world would get better and God would stop every bad thing.
Now if you are saying that under a general sort of theism you would expect God to heal everyone with this disease or under Islam or under any non-biblical framework, THEN I ABSOLUTELY AGREE.
Do you know why I agree?
Because under any other religions, especially those that endorse an evolutionary view of the world, the present earth we live on would be how it has always been. There was no initial paradise God created under that framework. So then you are perfectly within your right to then ask, "where is God's power?" Because under that framework, why is suffering part of the, "very good" creation? Because if things have always been this way, then that means God is a crap Creator, right? He's powerless, and basically under this view of things, there's no need to even believe in the useless god of evolution.
Under a general theism, why does God allow bad things? There is basically no answer. Apparently he uses ugly evolution and mutations and cancer to eventually get humanity? (Lol)
What a crap god. To be honest I'd be atheist if I believed in that history.
But under the bible framework the theology of the Christian bible answers for all of these basic atheist complaints. The world has gone wrong. Mutations are not the designer but part of the curse, they create disease because of the sins of mankind, which if you are honest, are pretty damn terrible when we think of some of those things, like rape, paedophiles, murders, violent crimes of every type, wicked imaginings such as acid attacks. There is a very real, very perverse sinful nature.
Now we are told in Noah's day the destruction was with water but in the last days it will be with fire, and there will be pangs as the world gets worse. Worse earthquakes and natural disasters, many wars, famines, diseases, etc...
But sure, under a sort of, "invented secular version of theism" where every murderer of babies gets a get out of jail free card because of his human rights and then is given a lifetime membership to the jello of the month club, sure, in that pseudo-spirtual context, we expect God to please our every whim and ignore the terrible crimes against all of the victims on this planet. We expect a "happily ever after" even for the most dispicable Godless, pride-filled anti-theists.
Because under evolution, your atheist version of god has always been a useless, merciless, powerless bastard.
I agree. But that atheist god just doesn't exist friend.
I'm going to regret this because your pattern of behaviour is to come here every couple of months, spew some errant nonsense spattered with fake and pseudo-philosophical garbage, pose around telling us how clever you are, then bugger off leaving a stinking mess of verbiage behind you.
No, it isn't. What this assertion is, is a rhetorical "mess", laced with question-begging-epithets, of which I am confident you still don't even understand exist. Just blurting things out according to the spin you put on them doesn't prove anything Tangle. That is why I name you as someone that should have potentially been banned.
But hey-ho; just for starters, atheists do not have any version of god
They have a strawman version of God. An atheist celebration day was online, I watched it and an atheist gave a version of god being the god of ALL religion. The god that would be both Allah and Jesus, the god that "SHOULD" be answering all prayer if he exists.
He argued that because that god doesn't answer prayer, God doesn't exist. His analogy was that God's email inbox was full of spam He didn't have time to answer.
But that type of atheist-strawman-god cannot logically exist because of the mutually exclusive tenets of each religion. For example with Christianity, it doesn't follow that God would answer the prayers of Muslims.
So his argument was a strawman god. Perhaps you should take that issue up with the atheist that argued it, and those who gave him a round of applause for his fallacious argument.
Thirdly, ffs stop confusing atheism and evolution - you could at least give the impression of having a brain as well as a mouth.
They're for all purposes one and the same thing. If God is the god of various evolutions, then that means god has done nothing, and then God is basically a name-tag added to the natural causes but let's face it Occam's razor shaves God away in this scenario.
Basically an evolutionary version of creation is a materialist one with the term, "God" added to it. It's a deist scenario really.
The point was that under this scenario there is no sense to why God allows suffering but under a biblical perspective the whole theology is different, because God never causes bad things, He only let's them occur as part of the fallen system.
It wasn't even a contentious point, it's only an explanation that your starting assumptions change depending upon what type of theism you argue as an atheist. You were meant to see that rather obvious thing.
you could at least give the impression of having a brain as well as a mouth.
I'm missing Faith already.
Give you enough rope, you hang yourself. You're proving my point you only exist to throw ad-homs at creationists because you don't really have any arguments to reason out.
Secondly, if a god created all this stuff while in a whimsical mood, he's not going to be called powerless by anyone - just utterly callous and uncaring. Merciless is a religious trope that no atheist would fall for.
Secondly, if a god created all this stuff while in a whimsical mood, he's not going to be called powerless by anyone - just utterly callous and uncaring.
Just to be clear for the readers; I said these things about a strawman-atheist-god that would basically use evolution and disease like cancer to slowly evolve things.
I was NOT saying that about the Lord my God. Jesus healed disease when He was on earth, and said that, "a kingdom divided against itself shall fall", meaning that God does NOT use disease as part of a slow, evolutionary process. That would be the god of atheism that would do that, which contradicts what Jesus said.
They' do not exist. You live in a weird outlier of a country - a modern, prosperous democracy with a primitive belief system still in place so your view of what an atheist is feels early 19th century to me and much of the rest of the Western world.
No, this is out of context of what I was saying. I was saying some atheists like that guy who done the talk and the atheists that clapped after he gave the talk, present a strawman version of god.
So, my, "view of what an atheist is" based on your telepathic abilities to read my mind are incorrect guesses about what I, "feel".
What I think about atheists as people has nothing to do with what I was arguing, Tangle.
Those of us that get involved in discussions with weird people like you are exceptions. Probably just as weird in our own way. Just a damn site more rational.
This is yet again the typical bare assertion fallacy evolutionists here love to use where they venerate one group and villianise the other group.
It's kind of ironic given rational thinking teaches us that of any two groups those groups will consist of individuals so you can't then falsely dichotomize two groups and treat one group according to certain traits and another group according to negative traits.
A, "damn site more rational".
What does rational wiki teach about this comment? It's an assertion, a bare assertion. You simply say it because you want to PRETEND to have the supremacy, pretend to be superior, but your arguments are like watching a plane crash.
This is pure idiocy. There are billions of believers of all sorts of religions that also accept evolution. But I suspect you'd call them all atheists too?
No. That's a strawman fallacy Mr More Rational. My point was about how the evolutionary version of theism is basically just in 100% agreement with the materialist version meaning you can use Occam's razor to shave, "God" away.
So with theistic evolutions of various religions, basically it's to adopt a materialist version of history then add God like you add salt and vinegar.
"Idiocy" is just a question-begging-epithet, I am not an idiot, but it pleases you on some irrational, sinful level to call me things I am clearly not. This is a sample of atheist morality in my book, you simply don't care about the bad things you say to people, having a thick skin and a heart of stone.
Oh please... Neglect is just as big a crime.
That's the judgement of an atheist, a subjective moral comment only based on your own whim. God does not, "neglect", we are told that God allows bad things to happen in the bible because of a sinful world.
The issue of the problem of good and evil is a big, big subject though and would deserve more than this simplistic comment. Even believers struggle to understand all that God allows and it is a serious test for us, however we choose to trust in God because of what the word says for example; "My ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
But nothing I can say will change you mind about what's in atheist's minds. You need your devils. The vast majority of atheists never give you and your gods a second thought.
The problem is my mind doesn't think any of the things you think it thinks. And what you state here goes without saying anyway. I know atheists, my brother is one and we never even debate because unlike you he isn't an antagonist against Christians like you.
I know that, "atheist" is just a word, I know many types of, "atheists" and have come across many types. You are basically an anti-theist troll. You can't see what you are at all.
Just stating that two add two is four to me, is a bizarre tactic some atheists use against me. They seem to believe that if they state something very elementary and basic that this somehow PROVES I didn't know that captain-obvious thing.
That is, "weird" to me. For why would I not see obvious things when I see so very many things you do not see? Is it dunning-kruger effect perhaps, the belief you are superior?
I feel no need to insult you and say that you are an idiot or have half a brain yet you call yourself the rationalist. To me the rationalist is the guy at EFF that doesn't behave in these ways. People like Popoi, Piasan, Goku. Those three atheists haven't attacked me in three years as much as you have today.
That doesn't speak of anything rational to me. It confirms to me you have a hard heart because of a sin-nature.