PROOF that God is Just

Originally posted by Symbiot
reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes

 

I noticed something lacking in your post as-well. Any reasons as to why your statements are true. How is my statement lacking in such ways?

the statements I made (in the first reply) are observable
your statement isn't

reply to post by Alpal


Perhaps I can help if you explain why?

reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes


How is it that the statements I made are not observable? I observed them, which is how I came to the conclusion in my statement.

You could watch the news for instance, travel the internet, observe people in your life.

reply to post by Symbiot


The man that walks to work and gets slaughtered by a group of kids for drug-money.
The woman or girl that's walking home from school or university and gets raped by a pack of freaks
The child that is molested for years until eventually in adulthood ends up completely #ed up

Do you know how many pedophiles, rapists and murderers walk free every day?

How is this justified?
How is this balanced?
Did the woman or girl deserve to get raped? Did the man deserve to get killed for money? Did the child deserve to get molested?

No I do not agree humans, as a whole, deserve each other.
Certain individuals (volunteer soldiers for instance, not conscripted) do though.

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
reply to post by Symbiot

 

The man that walks to work and gets slaughtered by a group of kids for drug-money.
The woman or girl that's walking home from school or university and gets raped by a pack of freaks
The child that is molested for years until eventually in adulthood ends up completely #ed up

Do you know how many pedophiles, rapists and murderers walk free every day?

How is this justified?
How is this balanced?
Did the woman or girl deserve to get raped? Did the man deserve to get killed for money? Did the child deserve to get molested?

No I do not agree humans, as a whole, deserve each other.
Certain individuals (soldiers for instance) do though.

edit on 13-7-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)

Here is another thread by myself that explains one good reason why those are all justified:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Drug killing: Basically the fellow being robbed for drug money has supported an unjust law against drugs there for the druggie can't simply grow his own without the need to bother anyone else. If the drug addict could grow his own drugs then he would have no need to mug or kill anyone else in order to get them. The guy that got mugged supports a government that makes it illegal to grow drugs and therefore he reaps what he has sewn.

A woman gets raped by a pack of 'freaks': Dopamine is a chemical released in the brain that causes us to experience pleasure. We receive this drug from our brains for a variety of reasons, you might feel a shot of dope when you buy a new iPhone or when you finish working on that 67 Ford Mustang and drive it for the first time. You also feel a shot of dope when you have sex. Humans need to experience pleasure, we need to have our shots of dopamine, if we do not get our regular pleasure doses we become ravenous trying to seek it out. Poor people are very rarely allowed to receive a shot of dope, because they cannot afford to obtain their pleasure. They cannot afford an iPhone or 67 Mustang, they cannot afford to go sky diving and in some cases they cannot afford a girlfriend. The raped woman supports a system where poor people are denied access to dopamine, because of this she is raped in someones ravenous attempt to obtain dopamine. She should not have supported a system that denied them that dope.

The last one: There's a couple of ways to attack this one, I'll leave part of it for now because it requires reincarnation which you probably don't like the idea of, though I have a great explanation as to how reincarnation works. For the molester, however; you see after having molested the child the molester has to live in a world full of #ed up people because of people like him.

Originally posted by Symbiot
reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes

 

How is it that the statements I made are not observable? I observed them, which is how I came to the conclusion in my statement.

You could watch the news for instance, travel the internet, observe people in your life.

please teach me to observe "people deserve each other"

reply to post by Symbiot


...umm..an ambiguous statement, but one of my friends, proving that God is Just had said God is not subject to the concept of injustice, because this concept only applies to something that has a judge or an owner, or in other words, something that has restricted rights. God, however, is eternal without a beginning, and is the true owner of absolutely everything, as God is the Creator of everything. If someone said, it would be injustice if God did so and so, then he has actually appointed himself as a judge of the Creator. How is that for arrogance? Some atheists argue that God is malevolent, but if they accept (which they would, if they even want to make the accusation in the first place), for the sake of argument, that God owns everything than their (the atheists) argument is dreck and hubristic.

reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes


I already did in the post you just quoted. Simply observe people and their actions. If someone is a jerk does he not deserve to be jerked around himself?

reply to post by Reprobation


Essentially there is no injustice in the world. Many people make the claim that if there is a God then why is there injustice, but I see no injustice. It only appears on the surface that bad things happen to good people, the truth is that they are not good people, but probably good at pretending to be good.

reply to post by Symbiot


Because it's nonsense, 1) sorry, but you need actual "proof" that he exists 2) I don't believe in "god" (my opinion i don’t care what others may think, no disrespect).

reply to post by Alpal


No disrespect taken, you are entitled to your opinion. I don't really think I need to prove that God exists for this statement to be true, you can simply replace the word God with the word Nature. Try that: Proof that Nature is Just.

Edit: I should add that I am not Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish or any other religion that you've ever heard of. Taking offense to you not believing in god is not really something someone of my religion would do.


Edit Edit: Heh, having said that I have invented my own personal religion. Now that I think about it I should invent a religious holiday. Let's call it "Religious Holiday" and it starts on January 1st and lasts through December 31st.

Originally posted by Symbiot

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
reply to post by Symbiot

 

The man that walks to work and gets slaughtered by a group of kids for drug-money.
The woman or girl that's walking home from school or university and gets raped by a pack of freaks
The child that is molested for years until eventually in adulthood ends up completely #ed up

Do you know how many pedophiles, rapists and murderers walk free every day?

How is this justified?
How is this balanced?
Did the woman or girl deserve to get raped? Did the man deserve to get killed for money? Did the child deserve to get molested?

No I do not agree humans, as a whole, deserve each other.
Certain individuals (soldiers for instance) do though.

edit on 13-7-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)

Here is another thread by myself that explains one good reason why those are all justified:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Drug killing: Basically the fellow being robbed for drug money has supported an unjust law against drugs there for the druggie can't simply grow his own without the need to bother anyone else. If the drug addict could grow his own drugs then he would have no need to mug or kill anyone else in order to get them. The guy that got mugged supports a government that makes it illegal to grow drugs and therefore he reaps what he has sewn.

A woman gets raped by a pack of 'freaks': Dopamine is a chemical released in the brain that causes us to experience pleasure. We receive this drug from our brains for a variety of reasons, you might feel a shot of dope when you buy a new iPhone or when you finish working on that 67 Ford Mustang and drive it for the first time. You also feel a shot of dope when you have sex. Humans need to experience pleasure, we need to have our shots of dopamine, if we do not get our regular pleasure doses we become ravenous trying to seek it out. Poor people are very rarely allowed to receive a shot of dope, because they cannot afford to obtain their pleasure. They cannot afford an iPhone or 67 Mustang, they cannot afford to go sky diving and in some cases they cannot afford a girlfriend. The raped woman supports a system where poor people are denied access to dopamine, because of this she is raped in someones ravenous attempt to obtain dopamine. She should not have supported a system that denied them that dope.

The last one: There's a couple of ways to attack this one, I'll leave part of it for now because it requires reincarnation which you probably don't like the idea of, though I have a great explanation as to how reincarnation works. For the molester, however; you see after having molested the child the molester has to live in a world full of #ed up people because of people like him.

edit on 13-7-2011 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)

It seems to me your argument revolves around the premise that people deserve what happens to them merely for being. You are providing secondary connections (the dopamine for rape, the legality of drug production for the murder) You are assuming the rapists are always poor and incapable of affording the 67 mustang or going skydiving. I'm going to provide you a third level connection. Why are the rapists denied access to their "dopamine"? Let's say they are denied access to their dopamine simply because they choose to indulge in more expensive sources of this happy chemical. Why do they choose to indulge in more expensive sources of this happy chemical? Because they are brought up by their mother or father to pursue expensive sources, yes?

So now we have four level connections:
1) The rape victim
2) The rapists requirement for dopamine
3) The rapists choose to pursue more expensive sources of dopamine of which they cannot afford
4) The parents of the rapists brought them up to pursue more expensive sources of dopamine

So because the parents of the rapists brought them up to pursue more expensive sources of dopamine of which they cannot afford, does this result in the eventual rape victim deserving her fate? No, because that is like saying that I deserve to get hit by a rock while sitting in the confines of my home simply for being in the path of it's trajectory.

Ofcourse though, you are going to then dwelve into the more extensive connections of said event, why did the parent's of the rapists bring their little rapists up to pursue more expensive sources of dopamine? Because the parents of the rape victim did not do anything to stop them from changing their desires?

Likewise, if my father for instance, did not do anything in his life before I was born to prevent people from throwing rocks, do I deserve for someone to throw a rock at me through my window? You are probably going to say that perhaps(not to put words in your mouth) that I deserve to get hit by the rock for not fortifying the window with steel just as the woman deserved to get raped for her parent's inaction. As you can see with these examples you are going to find an equal unjustification (am i responsible for my father's actions before my birth as the rape victim is responsible for hers? no) for every justification (the original result).

While I do see that you think you may have found some kind of "Perpetual, eventually identifiable" source of justification for every action or consequence, there are also equal "Perpetual, eventually identifiable" sources of unjustification. So your original statement would instead be: "All humans both deserve and don't deserve each other" which leaves us again in the gray area of the reality of our choices and afflictions.

In regards to the person that prefers expensive dopamine: Take into effect people who are hooked on drugs. The more drugs they do the more they need to do in order to obtain the same or similar high. The same is true for anything else pleasurable. For instance a wealthy person might be able to obtain an over abundance of dopamine because they have the money to buy anything they want. The problem is the more they buy the more they need to buy in order to obtain the same or similar pleasure from the things they buy. This is the argument given for the Tiger Woods adultery case. In the event of a wealthy person raping someone the case is that the wealthy person was likely able to sleep with any woman he wanted, slept with way too many so he now needs to find ways to make the sex more exhilarating in order to obtain the same high from sex.

The raped woman supports a system, I'll call the class based system, where we have an upper, middle and lower class. She is raped by a wealthy person for essentially the same reason she is raped by a poor person. She supports a system where some are denied access to dopamine because they are poor, she supports the same system that floods others with dopamine causing them to require more exhilarating methods of obtaining it. She believes that some people should be given little or nothing and others should be given way too much, she supports this belief by working for it and paying taxes to it. Because she supports this flawed system she is raped. She should have spent more time thinking about why people do things such as rape, more time realizing that she was supporting a flawed system that results in rape.

As far as the parents are concerned I would need more information about the parents situation, but I'm placing as much blame on the parents as the rapist and as much blame on the raped as the rapist. I posted this link already, but perhaps not to you:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That thread of mine explains one way that everyone is guilty of creating the world of crime we live in.

The same goes for the rock scenario, I need more back story.


Edit: P.S. Someone mentioned that I may have posted this to receive attention. In truth I actually thought this post would receive little to no attention, just felt like sayin' something. Anyway this is fun, I am enjoying this.

Originally posted by Symbiot
reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes

 

I already did in the post you just quoted. Simply observe people and their actions. If someone is a jerk does he not deserve to be jerked around himself?

no you did not
you confuse a moral judgement ("they deserve it") with an observable fact or event

reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes


I'm not really seeing your logic. When a person appears before a courtroom a jury tries to determine what they deserve based on the information presented to them. I am stating the same here. Observe peoples actions and then determine if they deserve the life they have based off of those actions.

Originally posted by Symbiot
reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes

 

I'm not really seeing your logic. When a person appears before a courtroom a jury tries to determine what they deserve based on the information presented to them. I am stating the same here. Observe peoples actions and then determine if they deserve the life they have based off of those actions.

for the sake of the argument, and using your analogy:

witnesses in a court are asked to describe the facts they witnessed (eg. palestinians are being killed by zionists), they are not asked to derive from that observation a moral judgement: "suits them right".
your statement actually is about that moral judgement: a woman gets raped because (a whole story that has very valid points) but as she is part of that system, well, basically she got what she asked for.

i disagree with that idea as it neglects structuring dimensions (I'm not saying you do so, at least not all the time: in your rape-example you introduce some of those structuring dimensions yourself) and it puts responsibility where no responsibility can be attributed (or do you really think that raped woman is responsible for it? This seems to be implicated by the "they deserve it"-approach you take)

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes

Originally posted by Symbiot
reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes

 

I'm not really seeing your logic. When a person appears before a courtroom a jury tries to determine what they deserve based on the information presented to them. I am stating the same here. Observe peoples actions and then determine if they deserve the life they have based off of those actions.

for the sake of the argument, and using your analogy:

witnesses in a court are asked to describe the facts they witnessed (eg. palestinians are being killed by zionists), they are not asked to derive from that observation a moral judgement: "suits them right".
your statement actually is about that moral judgement: a woman gets raped because (a whole story that has very valid points) but as she is part of that system, well, basically she got what she asked for.

i disagree with that idea as it neglects structuring dimensions (I'm not saying you do so, at least not all the time: in your rape-example you introduce some of those structuring dimensions yourself) and it puts responsibility where no responsibility can be attributed (or do you really think that raped woman is responsible for it? This seems to be implicated by the "they deserve it"-approach you take)

None of what you just said makes any logical sense. First of all I never referred to witnesses in a courtroom I referred to jurors. Jurors listen to an account of an event and try to determine what a justifiable punishment should be.

As for moral judgments, it is not I who am passing judgment, but nature. The woman created a rapist by supporting a system that creates rapists. Now having created a rapist she is raped. This is how nature works. If you jump off of a cliff you're probably going to die or get severely injured. So is it not the jumpers fault for jumping off the cliff?

The woman says there should be poor people. Nature says if there are poor people then some of them will rape people. The woman says there should be rich people. Nature says if there are rich people then some of them will rape people. The jumper says I'm gonna jump off of this cliff. Nature says if you jump off of a cliff you will get injured or die. Rape is simply the natural results from supporting a system that denies pleasure to some and overloads pleasure to others. The woman chose to go against nature, she chose the fight the laws of nature and got bit in the end.

Edit: I should probably say that I in no way condone the act of rape. As for the woman that is raped, well this is the hell you have created and supported and maintained, now you must live in that hell. Your bed, sleep in it.


Edit Edit: This doesn't deserve it's own reply, but I just saw the ad at the top of the ATS page that says "21 ways to frustrate Obama's snoops" and I just had to laugh out loud.

...

As for moral judgments, it is not I who am passing judgment, but nature

....

this is the crux
i don't go for this assumption. nature is. nature has no morality. it just is. whether we understand it or not. The worse one can do is ascribe attributes to nature that actually apply to human beans.
oh, no, there's one thing that's even worse: ascribing it to a god

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes

...

As for moral judgments, it is not I who am passing judgment, but nature

....

this is the crux
i don't go for this assumption. nature is. nature has no morality. it just is. whether we understand it or not. The worse one can do is ascribe attributes to nature that actually apply to human beans.
oh, no, there's one thing that's even worse: ascribing it to a god

Somewhat true. If a person jumps off a cliff, well nature determines their punishment. If a person supports division amongst people, upper/middle/lower class, then nature determines their punishment.

Originally posted by Symbiot

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes

...

As for moral judgments, it is not I who am passing judgment, but nature

....

this is the crux
i don't go for this assumption. nature is. nature has no morality. it just is. whether we understand it or not. The worse one can do is ascribe attributes to nature that actually apply to human beans.
oh, no, there's one thing that's even worse: ascribing it to a god

Somewhat true. If a person jumps off a cliff, well nature determines their punishment. If a person supports division amongst people, upper/middle/lower class, then nature determines their punishment.

nature doesn't determine "punishment"... "punishment" is a qualification made by humans feeling the need to label.

what about people NOT supporting any division (let's assume we're capable of doing just that) and still suffering the consequences of any such divisions.... what role does nature play in such situation?