@Azotadeth Thanks for the comments. I would like to say however, 1: I do not find the Epicurus comment relevant as the original quote was obviously not in English and there are several translations. However with your second comment, I feel you may have missed my intention with "evil in the natural world" as I was trying to visually show the common issue in the philosophy of ethics that deals with animal suffering. John Loftus has a post about it over at Debunking Christianity, you should check..
You could indeed be right about quoting Epicurus, albeit my qualms with it is actually your last quotation of him, in which you go back from "neither able and willing" to "both able and willing" -> "Then why call him God", didn't explain it too well did I ? ^_^u (Oh and you had noticed, right ?)
As for #2, thanks for pointing to the Debunking Christianity link, your comment and that cleared things up a bit I guess.
But again, Id still question, at the very least, the inclusion of prey-predator relationships and predators feeding on a carcass.
While often not pretty or agreeable to many people, I dont think it should ever be understood as "evil" or "indiscriminate cause of suffering" or anything similar, if you know what I mean.
@Azotadeth cont...it out. The point was to bring humans to an animal level to show that suffering (or evil as this video suggests) is universal, not not consistant with an all loving god. The fact that humans have named this "evil" does not make it a human construct.
Thirdly, sorry about the gorey pictures, but again, it was to emphasize a point
Wow, RB, that's fast. Great work there's little or nothing in there that allows an excuse of "oh, that's not God, that's human sin". With this video, "God" and his apologists have a lot to answer for.
I put up a new blog post linking here; I'd love for lots of people to see this. And I'd love to hear the apologists answer: What kind of "loving God" creates or allows such horrors, and just watches doing nothing? (I know, it's been asked a billion times already. But it still goes unanswered!)
@defaithed Good point about why is there suffering? R.Dawkins observes that the entity from which this world formed is completely indifferent to the suffering or death of animals. There are many carnivores whose whole anatomy is geared to catching & eating prey. Their prey also has the anatomy geared to escape. This is clearly not something which evolved since 4000BCE. It is intrinsic from ancient times. Why would humans be damned for being driven to act in a similar way?
@defaithed It is quite clear to me that the Bible & other Writ is proto thought of the type you would expect to find from creatures who had evolved from a common ancestor to other primates. The Bible is mostly primitive, superstitious mumbo jumbo. They were just guessing. Primates have imposed game rules on us for getting to an imagined heaven & escaping an imagined hades. These rules are largely misantropic or pointless, however the default position of don't murder, rape or steal is sensible
Nature is terrible, in the old sense of the word, meaning awe inspiring and sublime. It is also impassive to suffering. I'm sure that's why Nature has always had a God superimposed upon it, who is supposed to be good and ameliorate suffering. However, Epicurus recognized the flaw in that logic a couple of millenia ago and it's not gotten any better. good job
Hmmmm, I have three complaints about this video (bear with me).
First, I think you misquoted Epicurus.
Second, I think that presenting "evil in the natural world" was a horrible idea, flawed from the start, as evil is purely a human concept.
Third, boy some of those images were distressing, I cringed before the poor kitteh (yeah, Im a cat lover, sue me or shoot me).
Azotadeth 1 year ago
@Azotadeth Thanks for the comments. I would like to say however, 1: I do not find the Epicurus comment relevant as the original quote was obviously not in English and there are several translations. However with your second comment, I feel you may have missed my intention with "evil in the natural world" as I was trying to visually show the common issue in the philosophy of ethics that deals with animal suffering. John Loftus has a post about it over at Debunking Christianity, you should check..
RhetoricalBullshit 1 year ago
@RhetoricalBullshit *and not
RhetoricalBullshit 1 year ago
@RhetoricalBullshit
You could indeed be right about quoting Epicurus, albeit my qualms with it is actually your last quotation of him, in which you go back from "neither able and willing" to "both able and willing" -> "Then why call him God", didn't explain it too well did I ? ^_^u (Oh and you had noticed, right ?)
Azotadeth 1 year ago
@RhetoricalBullshit
As for #2, thanks for pointing to the Debunking Christianity link, your comment and that cleared things up a bit I guess.
But again, Id still question, at the very least, the inclusion of prey-predator relationships and predators feeding on a carcass.
While often not pretty or agreeable to many people, I dont think it should ever be understood as "evil" or "indiscriminate cause of suffering" or anything similar, if you know what I mean.
Azotadeth 1 year ago
@Azotadeth cont...it out. The point was to bring humans to an animal level to show that suffering (or evil as this video suggests) is universal, not not consistant with an all loving god. The fact that humans have named this "evil" does not make it a human construct.
Thirdly, sorry about the gorey pictures, but again, it was to emphasize a point
RhetoricalBullshit 1 year ago
Wow, RB, that's fast. Great work there's little or nothing in there that allows an excuse of "oh, that's not God, that's human sin". With this video, "God" and his apologists have a lot to answer for.
I put up a new blog post linking here; I'd love for lots of people to see this. And I'd love to hear the apologists answer: What kind of "loving God" creates or allows such horrors, and just watches doing nothing? (I know, it's been asked a billion times already. But it still goes unanswered!)
defaithed 1 year ago 2
@defaithed Good point about why is there suffering? R.Dawkins observes that the entity from which this world formed is completely indifferent to the suffering or death of animals. There are many carnivores whose whole anatomy is geared to catching & eating prey. Their prey also has the anatomy geared to escape. This is clearly not something which evolved since 4000BCE. It is intrinsic from ancient times. Why would humans be damned for being driven to act in a similar way?
zytigon 4 months ago
@defaithed It is quite clear to me that the Bible & other Writ is proto thought of the type you would expect to find from creatures who had evolved from a common ancestor to other primates. The Bible is mostly primitive, superstitious mumbo jumbo. They were just guessing. Primates have imposed game rules on us for getting to an imagined heaven & escaping an imagined hades. These rules are largely misantropic or pointless, however the default position of don't murder, rape or steal is sensible
zytigon 4 months ago
poor cat :(
JoakimfromAnka 1 year ago
nicely paced, especially towards the end.
Nature is terrible, in the old sense of the word, meaning awe inspiring and sublime. It is also impassive to suffering. I'm sure that's why Nature has always had a God superimposed upon it, who is supposed to be good and ameliorate suffering. However, Epicurus recognized the flaw in that logic a couple of millenia ago and it's not gotten any better. good job
MachAttack1 1 year ago
:S You need some kind of warning before all those gruesome pictures... I was about to go to bed! :'(
You make a good point, but a warning would be kind.
kahlobloodline 1 year ago
@kahlobloodline Good luck, you will never sleep again.
RYANkMCCARTHY 1 year ago
@RYANkMCCARTHY pfft i watch this video to sleep.
FellBrian 1 year ago
@RYANkMCCARTHY No kidding... nearly 4am, have to be up at 10, and still not ready to sleep...
kahlobloodline 1 year ago
Excellent! Excellent!
bobster451 1 year ago