entsbehavingbadly
bloodonmytypewriterkeys:

friendlyatheist:

scriptonaut:

I’m beginning to think he’s a troll and will drop the argument but I have a small rant/response.
Being religious does not mean that I am anti-science. I believe in evolution. I believe in God. Why is the idea that God used the laws of science that we’ve discovered to create the world so strange to both sides of this debate?? Wouldn’t an all knowing loving Heavenly Father WANT his children to be able to learn from him and about their origins- both physically and spiritually? I believe in a God that wants me to educate myself as much as possible. There are few things we take into the next life, the most important being our knowledge.  While there are people out there who are being closed minded about scientific progress, people like this commenter is JUST as closed minded about my beliefs.
Recently Hank Green released a song about how freaking WEIRD the universe is. (It’s really awesome, go listen!) There is just SO much stuff we don’t know about it, and probably will never know. No Edge and all that. I know his point wasn’t religious, but from my point of view, I saw God in all those oddities and mysteries. The fact that there ARE answers out there and maybe, just maybe, learning those answers through spiritual means is just as okay as learning them scientifically. Either way, we find out something COOL about the universe.
So remember Tumblies, God and Science can be BFFs.
I believe this commenter, troll or not, is believing that since a few minor religions are anti-science, anyone who believes in religion must be too.

Who trusted God was love indeedAnd love Creation’s final lawTho’ Nature, red in tooth and clawWith ravine, shriek’d against his creed
Is this the god you believe in? One that watches passively millions of years of death, extinction, suffering, and catastrophe as he waits for humans to evolve? Is this what you call “all loving”? A god that is compatible with science and nature is not, cannot be, a just and good god.
The god of the bible, or relgion, cannot be a bff of reality. On the contrary, is the epitome of contradiction.
In reason:-FA 

So God is love and life is full of suffering. So what. What would love be without hate? What would life be without death? What would the glory of the universe be without sadness and pain and suffering?
And - more importantly than anything else - what would free will be without obstacles to overcome and bad decisions to make. What would free will be without the option of genocide and rape and exploitation?
As for natural disasters and diseases - who is to say that God isn’t here to care for bacteria and tapeworms and the wind and the rain? There’s a huge fucking universe out there and God can love ALL of it.
So don’t use the piss-weak argument of universal suffering to say that an all-loving God is incompatible with science and reality.

SIWOTI alert…
Such a god would not be the god of the three monotheistic religions. In such, suffering is not a necessity but an aberration. Hence how suffering and a GOOD god cannot mix. How can cruel and amoral nature come from a so called good, just, and caring god? Is this really that hard to understand?
Fact is the universe behaves as we would expect it to if a god did not exist. To assume that a god cares for tapeworms (tapeworm heaven maybe?) is a truly piss poor argument in favor of something you can’t prove and that is not needed to explain reality. Your retort would be funnier if it weren’t so pathetic. 
It is a good thing that there is no reason to believe a god exists. The last thing one would want is for such a god to love us the same way he loved the dinosaurs.
In reason:
-FA 
EDIT: On free will. Where is the free will of a person that is being raped? Does this god take into account that? The fact that the person being raped does not want it to happen? Nope. Only the free will of the rapist counts. Either a god does not exist or god really, really likes rapists.

bloodonmytypewriterkeys:

friendlyatheist:

scriptonaut:

I’m beginning to think he’s a troll and will drop the argument but I have a small rant/response.

Being religious does not mean that I am anti-science. I believe in evolution. I believe in God. Why is the idea that God used the laws of science that we’ve discovered to create the world so strange to both sides of this debate?? Wouldn’t an all knowing loving Heavenly Father WANT his children to be able to learn from him and about their origins- both physically and spiritually? I believe in a God that wants me to educate myself as much as possible. There are few things we take into the next life, the most important being our knowledge.  While there are people out there who are being closed minded about scientific progress, people like this commenter is JUST as closed minded about my beliefs.

Recently Hank Green released a song about how freaking WEIRD the universe is. (It’s really awesome, go listen!) There is just SO much stuff we don’t know about it, and probably will never know. No Edge and all that. I know his point wasn’t religious, but from my point of view, I saw God in all those oddities and mysteries. The fact that there ARE answers out there and maybe, just maybe, learning those answers through spiritual means is just as okay as learning them scientifically. Either way, we find out something COOL about the universe.

So remember Tumblies, God and Science can be BFFs.

I believe this commenter, troll or not, is believing that since a few minor religions are anti-science, anyone who believes in religion must be too.

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation’s final law
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek’d against his creed

Is this the god you believe in? One that watches passively millions of years of death, extinction, suffering, and catastrophe as he waits for humans to evolve? Is this what you call “all loving”? A god that is compatible with science and nature is not, cannot be, a just and good god.

The god of the bible, or relgion, cannot be a bff of reality. On the contrary, is the epitome of contradiction.

In reason:
-FA 

So God is love and life is full of suffering. So what. What would love be without hate? What would life be without death? What would the glory of the universe be without sadness and pain and suffering?

And - more importantly than anything else - what would free will be without obstacles to overcome and bad decisions to make. What would free will be without the option of genocide and rape and exploitation?

As for natural disasters and diseases - who is to say that God isn’t here to care for bacteria and tapeworms and the wind and the rain? There’s a huge fucking universe out there and God can love ALL of it.

So don’t use the piss-weak argument of universal suffering to say that an all-loving God is incompatible with science and reality.

SIWOTI alert…

Such a god would not be the god of the three monotheistic religions. In such, suffering is not a necessity but an aberration. Hence how suffering and a GOOD god cannot mix. How can cruel and amoral nature come from a so called good, just, and caring god? Is this really that hard to understand?

Fact is the universe behaves as we would expect it to if a god did not exist. To assume that a god cares for tapeworms (tapeworm heaven maybe?) is a truly piss poor argument in favor of something you can’t prove and that is not needed to explain reality. Your retort would be funnier if it weren’t so pathetic. 

It is a good thing that there is no reason to believe a god exists. The last thing one would want is for such a god to love us the same way he loved the dinosaurs.

In reason:

-FA 

EDIT: On free will. Where is the free will of a person that is being raped? Does this god take into account that? The fact that the person being raped does not want it to happen? Nope. Only the free will of the rapist counts. Either a god does not exist or god really, really likes rapists.

  1. demenior reblogged this from friendlyatheist
  2. omni-slasher reblogged this from friendlyatheist
  3. steve-o-is-cool reblogged this from friendlyatheist
  4. quasiflexuralthrusting reblogged this from friendlyatheist and added:
    #boom
  5. nkmega reblogged this from friendlyatheist
  6. friendlyatheist reblogged this from entsbehavingbadly and added:
    SIWOTI alert #2 and with this the topic is over. Don’t want to spam the feeds… I did not say there is no free will (I am...
  7. alittledropofheaven reblogged this from friendlyatheist
  8. entsbehavingbadly reblogged this from friendlyatheist and added:
    OH MY FUCKING WORD DOES IT SAY GOD ANYWHERE? No. It doesn’t. DOES IT SAY ‘ABLE TO MANIPULATE THE UNIVERSE TO YOUR...