• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Blast from the Past! The Epicurean paradox from 300 BC!

Evil serves a training purpose...

A lot of religious arguments center around a similar claim that the random and senseless destruction of people is justified because those people are just props and objects for the "testing" and "training" of other people.

Meaning, if a tsunami killed 250,000 people in your country, then those people are just props for the "training" of the religious belief of countless other people all the way on the other side of the earth.

Not to mention, all those people dying must be "training" only for a specific religion and a specific god, not every god that is claimed on the planet, past, present or future.

That kind of a mental state, is safe to say, must be a mental disorder.
 
That is a manifestation of man defining it.
That may not be true.

Purposeful and determined mass destruction is supporting my point even more. Thanks.
 
:doh
Still just man made.

The religious claim human behavior is divinely caused. That mass murder and genocide and mass destruction from natural causes are all to "test" the faith of the believers -- therefore divinely purposed.

If they are man made then they are not divine.
 
The religious claim human behavior is divinely caused. That mass murder and genocide and mass destruction from natural causes are all to "test" the faith of the believers -- therefore divinely purposed.

If they are man made then they are not divine.
Human definitions are as man made as you know think their beliefs are.
 
Human definitions are as man made as you know think their beliefs are.

So?

Did 250,000 people die in a tsunami across the planet so that people in this country are tested in their belief to a supernatural being, or not? Where those people just a prop for the use and utility of believers to one specific religion all the way around the world from where the disaster happened?

There is no way to refute that believing something like this would classify this claim as a mental disorder - which is what all religion is, from tree worship, to volcano worship to old white man with a beard worship.
 
:doh You obviously do not understand the premise.
There is no such thing as bad, good, evil, etc.
There are only actions and inaction. Those are that which humans give their own subjective meaning to when they have no idea what they really mean, if anything at all.


Did 250,000 people die in a tsunami across the planet so that people in this country are tested in their belief to a supernatural being, or not?


Where those people just a prop for the use and utility of believes to one specific religion all the way around the world from where the disaster happened?
IDK, is that the way you look at it?


There is no way to refute that believing something like this would classify this claim as a mental disorder.
:doh
Your belief which counters theirs can also be classified as such.
 

Then know first and talk later.

If the death of 250,000 people within a few hours is a random and unimportant event for you, then, OK, you can claim so in your Bio.

That mass destruction is actively presented as a "test" and a "training" of the faithful of a religion on the other side of the world. If that's not a mental disorder symptom, nothing is.
 
Then know first and talk later.
Absurd reply give the context of what was said.



If the death of 250,000 people within a few hours is a random and unimportant event for you, then, OK, you can claim so in your Bio.

That mass destruction is actively presented as a "test" and a "training" of the faithful of a religion on the other side of the world. If that's not a mental disorder symptom, nothing is.

And our belief which counters theirs can also be classified as such.


Apparently you do not realize you are in the philosophical arena.
You can no more disprove the existence of a G_d any more than they can prove one does.

And not just that, but everything in this discussion is dependent on mankind's definitions.
 
You can no more disprove the existence of a G_d any more than they can prove one does.

That's just nonsensical drivel. Philosophy is about the search for existence, not accepting random utterings from mentally deranged people as equally true as any other claim.

Logic does not require to disprove anything. People that make claims have to prove them otherwise they are in the realm of fantasy, or otherwise known as religion.

Nobody has to disprove that volcano gods don't exist. It's up to the volcano gods believing people to prove that what they claim is true.

These are high school level arguments. If people older than highschool age can't deal with them then they have to acknowledge their intellectual inferiority.
 
That's just nonsensical drivel. Philosophy is about the search for existence,
That is a partial definition and as such is incomplete.



relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.


https://www.google.com/search?q=philosophical


philosophy
[fi-los-uh-fee]

noun, plural philosophies.
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.​

Philosophy | Define Philosophy at Dictionary.com

The truth is you have no idea if you have any true knowledge, as all we have is that based on our own limited understanding which exists in how we define things.



not accepting random utterings from mentally deranged people as equally true as any other claim.
And if you cease uttering the problem is solved.


Logic does not require to disprove anything. People that make claims have to prove them otherwise they are in the realm of fantasy, or otherwise known as religion.

Nobody has to disprove that volcano gods don't exist. It's up to the volcano gods believing people to prove that what they claim is true.

These are high school level arguments. If people older than highschool age can't deal with them then they have to acknowledge their intellectual inferiority.
:doh
Sadly you are still wrapped up in how humans define things.
Stop with your high school level arguments then and realize that you can no more disprove the existence of a G_d any more than they can prove one does.
 
Last edited:
...you can no more disprove the existence of a G_d any more than they can prove one does.

So, since *you* cannot disprove that a volcano god exists then a volcano god *may* exist.

That's what I called earlier a mental disorder.
 
So, since *you* cannot disprove that a volcano god exists then a volcano god *may* exist.

That's what I called earlier a mental disorder.
You are totally off base.

Again.
You can no more disprove the existence of a G_d any more than they can prove one does.


That encompasses both sides of the argument, neither of which can be proven.

All you are doing is showing you do not understand the argument or it's relevance to a philosophy.
 
A lot of religious arguments center around a similar claim that the random and senseless destruction of people is justified because those people are just props and objects for the "testing" and "training" of other people.
Of one's self, I would argue.

That kind of a mental state, is safe to say, must be a mental disorder.
Would you mind confining your replies to what I've actualy argued instead of going off on randome things as you just did?

If something bad happens to you, that's training for you; to handle bad events and actions and grow as an individual. Choice means nothing when you aren't allowed to make mistakes.

And tsunamis aren't bad or evil. They're unthinking weather events.
 
Last edited:
Wtf? Are you?
This is the philosophical arena.
You can't even prove a G_d exists to make such contorted arguments.
That is why the discussion ends with the fact that you are only spouting a belief which is for you to take or leave. Not me.



Can you prove that a higher power does not exist? Otherwise it is just your belief system vs. My belief system!
 
Can you prove that a higher power does not exist? Otherwise it is just your belief system vs. My belief system!
:doh

Clearly you do not understand my position.
 
So sorry, between exclamations about human definitions, absurd, idk and spouting, I guess that I missed it!
If you would spend less time spouting and more time reading you would have seen it.

So since I can see you choose tnot to read what is posted, let me help you.
Your lame question in post #41 ...
"Can you prove that a higher power does not exist? Otherwise it is just your belief system vs. My belief system!"

Came after the following was stated in post #39.
You can no more disprove the existence of a G_d any more than they can prove one does.

So what exactly about that did you not understand?
 
Last edited:
If you would spend less time spouting and more time reading you would have seen it.

So since I can see you choose tnot to read what is posted, let me help you.
Your lame question in post #41 ...
"Can you prove that a higher power does not exist? Otherwise it is just your belief system vs. My belief system!"

Came after the following was stated in post #39.
You can no more disprove the existence of a G_d any more than they can prove one does.

So what exactly about that did you not understand?



I am not into riddles! What I don't understand Is whether you believe in the existence of a higher power or not. I think that we all understand that proof either way is a bit hard to come by.
 
I am not into riddles! What I don't understand Is whether you believe in the existence of a higher power or not. I think that we all understand that proof either way is a bit hard to come by.
:doh
1. That clearly isn't a riddle.
2. My personal belief is irrelevant to this discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom