What did viruses do before the Fall?

[Trakar]

Tu quoque is not an argument. Besides, what exactly is fundamentalist atheism? What fundaments of what faith is that related to?

Atheism that believes that the only true christians are the literalist fundementalist christians.

 

[TimCallahan]

Fundementalist Atheism is no prettier than fundementalist christianity.

And this answers what I said in what way? All I said was that I see a God who sit on the sidelines and allows the violent premature deaths of over a half a million people to not be a deity I'd want to worship. This makes me a "fundamentalist atheist"?

I simply said that you and I don't agree and aren't likely to. How exactly does saying that merit name-calling and labeling on your part?

 

[Halfcentaur]

This is what I like to call the acceptance of a god by virtue of distance.
Thanks to God being far away, intangible, and esoteric, he can get away with all kinds of stuff.

But if you just imagined being in a room with God in the form of a very real man, with very real features, and a very real voice, telling you he has the ability to personally prevent all the suffering you've ever known about but did not because his selfless and selfish acts are "different", think of how hilarious it looks when the good believer smiles at this God man and says thank you sir, that makes sense enough to me. It's just different!

 

[GeneMachine]

Atheism that believes that the only true christians are the literalist fundementalist christians.

Generally, atheists are not deeply concerned with the question who may or may not be a "true christian", by the very nature of atheism.

I do see a good reason to predominantly confront and debate fundamentalists and literalists, due to their rise in political power lately and due to the consequences that may bring for me.

 

[bruto]

Fundementalist Atheism is no prettier than fundementalist christianity.

You don't have to be anything even close to a "fundamentalist" atheist to question whether the god most theists refer to can be an omnibenevolent, involved deity given the realities we observe. Maybe you can do it, but the quality of theology required to make it convincing is not being seen here.

 

[edge]

Here's a question for DOC, edge, AvalonXQ and any other creationists on this forum: What did viruses do before the Fall of Man? Creationists explain such evils as predation and parasitism as resulting from God's curse on g=creation following the Fall of Man. It's their way of dealing with the less benign aspects of nature. Before the Fall, they argue, all species of animal were herbivores. All of the nasty stuff - not only predation and parasitism, but hernias and fallen arches - came about as a result of the Fall.

Consider two species of bacteria from the genus Clostridium, C. tetani and C. botulinum, the causative agents, respectively, of tetanus and botulism. In the soil, they are beneficial to all life, since they affix atmospheric nitrogen. The creationist argument would be that, before the fall, all these bacteria did was to live in the soil and affix nitrogen. As a result of the Fall, they were corrupted to the point that they created lethal poisons.

However, how do creationists account for viruses? They do nothing other than hijack the genetic and protein making machinery of the cells they infect to create new viruses. In the process, they destroy the host cell. They are obligate parasites. So, creationists, what did viruses do before the fall?

In yellow:
Don't know and were they even there as we know them now?
I am only concerned with what they do now.

 

[Trakar]

And this answers what I said in what way? All I said was that I see a God who sit on the sidelines and allows the violent premature deaths of over a half a million people to not be a deity I'd want to worship. This makes me a "fundamentalist atheist"?

I simply said that you and I don't agree and aren't likely to. How exactly does saying that merit name-calling and labeling on your part?

Your statements about my beliefs were bizarre caricatures intended to disparage and insult those beliefs and by extension the people who hold those beliefs (me). If you wish to hold a discussion on the topic at hand without any personal disparagement, it is probably not a good idea to repeatedly insult and attack those who you are talking with.

 

[Trakar]

Generally, atheists are not deeply concerned with the question who may or may not be a "true christian", by the very nature of atheism.

Generally, they shouldn't be, but that doesn't seem to be the case with some.

I do see a good reason to predominantly confront and debate fundamentalists and literalists, due to their rise in political power lately and due to the consequences that may bring for me.

I agree, regardless of whether that fundementalist literalism is religious or areligious.

 

[Trakar]

You don't have to be anything even close to a "fundamentalist" atheist to question whether the god most theists refer to can be an omnibenevolent, involved deity given the realities we observe. Maybe you can do it, but the quality of theology required to make it convincing is not being seen here.

If you are unsure what a person's beliefs are and how they logically and rationally find congruence within that person's understandings, a non-fundementalist would simply ask the person and discuss that person's responses. A fundementalist already knows the answers they want and disparages any responses that don't seem to lead to their predetermined answer.

I have never claimed an omnibenevolent God, especially with respect to any particular human perspective. The claim I was refuting was that by not interacting to stop or remediate things that some perspectives and considerations dislike makes God evil.

 

[I Ratant]

Atheism that believes that the only true christians are the literalist fundementalist christians.

.
There are no "true" christians... maybe the Sikhs come closer to actually living the commandments, than any christian has.

 

[Trakar]

.
There are no "true" christians... maybe the Sikhs come closer to actually living the commandments, than any christian has.

The only christian commandments I am aware of are:

"Love God"

and

"love your neighbors as you love yourself"

 

[TimCallahan]

In yellow:
Don't know and were they even there as we know them now?
I am only concerned with what they do now.

Here, again, is the basic part of the OP:

Here's a question for DOC, edge, AvalonXQ and any other creationists on this forum: What did viruses do before the Fall of Man? Creationists explain such evils as predation and parasitism as resulting from God's curse on creation following the Fall of Man. It's their way of dealing with the less benign aspects of nature. Before the Fall, they argue, all species of animal were herbivores. All of the nasty stuff - not only predation and parasitism, but hernias and fallen arches - came about as a result of the Fall.
Now, perhaps I've gotten this wrong, although I picked it up from various creationist texts put out by the Institute for Creation Research. Creationists also argue that all of the "created kinds" were created before the fall. Viruses are too different from bacteria to be part of an already existing "kind" that differentiated after the fall. Thus, they must have, according to the YEC scenario, been created before the fall. Since they are obligate parasites, what did they do before the fall?

If you want YEC to be taken seriously, then it's important o be able to answer such questions.

 

[TimCallahan]

Your statements about my beliefs were bizarre caricatures intended to disparage and insult those beliefs and by extension the people who hold those beliefs (me). If you wish to hold a discussion on the topic at hand without any personal disparagement, it is probably not a good idea to repeatedly insult and attack those who you are talking with.

First of all, I don't recall making any comments on your beliefs other than to say that you didn't seem to see two natural disasters that, between them took the lives of over half a million people as being evil. I do believe you actually did say as much. I simply said that you and I were too far apart on that issue to be able to come to any agreement.

Please quote any post I've made on this thread that contains "bizarre caricatures intended to disparage and insult those beliefs and by extension the people who hold those beliefs (me)."

Frankly, I think you're reading things into what I've said.

 

[TimCallahan]

If you are unsure what a person's beliefs are and how they logically and rationally find congruence within that person's understandings, a non-fundementalist would simply ask the person and discuss that person's responses. A fundementalist already knows the answers they want and disparages any responses that don't seem to lead to their predetermined answer.

I have never claimed an omnibenevolent God, especially with respect to any particular human perspective. The claim I was refuting was that by not interacting to stop or remediate things that some perspectives and considerations dislike makes God evil.

Very well, what is your picture of God? Is he largely uncaring regarding individual humans? Tat would certainly fit with the portrayal of God in the final chapters of the Book of Job. On the other hand, I somehow got the impression you were a Christian. Can the God of Christianity be uncaring? For that matter, can the God who would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of only ten just men be uncaring? BTW, we don't have to take that story as literally true to make it meaningful.

 

[Trakar]

Very well, what is your picture of God?

The Creator of all that is.

Is he largely uncaring regarding individual humans?

Uncaring, I believe not. Unfocussed on, and largely unconcerned with, our individual thoughts, actions, and general lives would probably be more accurate to my considerations of such; being human, and not privy to the details of how the supernatural functions, much less supernatural beings, these are the result of considerations based upon my reconciliations between elements of belief and natural world understandings.

Tat would certainly fit with the portrayal of God in the final chapters of the Book of Job.

Scripture is not a history text, nor a science text, it is a collection of inspirational testimonies employing a broad range of persuasional and informational techniques. It is a poetic prose originally intended for oral recitation, not something that should be considered literally or in small, out of context, quips.

On the other hand, I somehow got the impression you were a Christian.

re: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8544932&postcount=61

Can the God of Christianity be uncaring?

How do you describe the "God of Christianity?" I can tell you how I, a Christian, describe my understanding of God. That these descriptions vary should be expected as each Christian is different in their understanding of God. Groups of theists are defined by their commonalities first, and their differences secondarily (e.g. Abrahamic -> Jewish, Christian, Islamic| Christian -> R. Catholic, Byzantine Catholics. Protestant, etc.,).

For that matter, can the God who would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of only ten just men be uncaring? BTW, we don't have to take that story as literally true to make it meaningful.

Very true, I would go further, however, and say that the failure to look for the contextual metaphoric story nature of any scriptural accounting is resulting from (passive/active) misunderstanding.

Somewhat ironically, one of the "lessons" associated in the exegesis of the Sodom and Gomorrah story includes the teaching that people often prefer and are invested in the paths they are on, even if it seems to us to be leading them toward their own spiritual degradation. We should focus on our own relationship with God rather than getting distracted trying to measure and weigh or change other's relationship with God.

 

[Trakar]

First of all, I don't recall making any comments on your beliefs other than to say that you didn't seem to see two natural disasters that, between them took the lives of over half a million people as being evil...

The post you took offense to was in response to a post that contained this line - "If there's a God who could prevent huge disasters, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which took 230,000 lives, or the 2010 Haitian earthquake, which took 300,000 lives, and this deity stood by passively and did nothing and let that grand total of 530,000 humans have their live snuffed out, I'd call that evil, and I certainly wouldn't see that God as worthy of worship. You, apparently, don't see anything amiss in this."

Implying that the atrocious caricature you portray is the God I believe in and that my beliefs apparently agree with and condone your portrayal is a personal and direct attack.

 

[I Ratant]

Sadly, that "caricature" is the only view of your god that makes any sense, considering that it is supposed to mind the fall of every sparrow.
Moving it back to "uncaring" isn't much different from Voltaire's idea of "lost interest" in the fruits of its creation... found a different shiny nickel to wonder at, as it were.

 

[TimCallahan]

The post you took offense to was in response to a post that contained this line - "If there's a God who could prevent huge disasters, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which took 230,000 lives, or the 2010 Haitian earthquake, which took 300,000 lives, and this deity stood by passively and did nothing and let that grand total of 530,000 humans have their live snuffed out, I'd call that evil, and I certainly wouldn't see that God as worthy of worship. You, apparently, don't see anything amiss in this."

Implying that the atrocious caricature you portray is the God I believe in and that my beliefs apparently agree with and condone your portrayal is a personal and direct attack.

Perhaps I missed something; but, did you not say that natural disasters were not evil? I'm sorry if you think this is an attack on your religion or a caricature of God. However, one reason I find it a bit hard to believe in a compassionate God is that he seems absent so many times. I can, for example understand such a deity not intervening in most cases of human caused evil. However, I have a hard time with a God who wouldn't have fried the likes of Hitler, Stalin or Mao with a thunderbolt before they killed their millions. You and I will, no doubt, disagree on this, as we do on those killed in the two natural disasters I've mentioned. However, that doesn't mean I'm ridiculing your religion or your God. I simply don't agree with your religion or believe in your God.

 

[Trakar]

Perhaps I missed something; but, did you not say that natural disasters were not evil? I'm sorry if you think this is an attack on your religion or a caricature of God. However, one reason I find it a bit hard to believe in a compassionate God is that he seems absent so many times.

This, to me, seems to be your personal conflation of the Creator with some sort of personal superman or genie devoted to righting the world's injustices as you perceive them. This has nothing to do with the God of my understanding or beliefs.

I can, for example understand such a deity not intervening in most cases of human caused evil. However, I have a hard time with a God who wouldn't have fried the likes of Hitler, Stalin or Mao with a thunderbolt before they killed their millions. You and I will, no doubt, disagree on this, as we do on those killed in the two natural disasters I've mentioned. However, that doesn't mean I'm ridiculing your religion or your God. I simply don't agree with your religion or believe in your God.

Again, your caricaturized distortions are not representative of my beliefs concerning God, and your again, continued insistance that your distortions are representative of my beliefs is personally insulting.

 

[TimCallahan]

This, to me, seems to be your personal conflation of the Creator with some sort of personal superman or genie devoted to righting the world's injustices as you perceive them. This has nothing to do with the God of my understanding or beliefs.



Again, your caricaturized distortions are not representative of my beliefs concerning God, and your again, continued insistance that your distortions are representative of my beliefs is personally insulting.

Frankly, this is getting a bit ridiculous. What the hell are you going on about? I haven't caricaturized a damn thing. All I said is that you and I probably disagree on the subject. I am simply not going to waste any further time massaging your overly tender ego. Im done with this nonsense.