God

[leilanidude]

Do you really want me to post what I find evil about religion?
-------------
Start with the "religion of peace" - Islam.
Then expound about how they treat woman as property, slaves even. Amazes me that the liberals tolerate Islam/Muslims when the religion actively advocates such brutal treatment of women, gays, etc.

[Durian Fiend]

TomK - Apart from destroying people's lives and homes and causing wars?

Wildfires like those in Lahaina destroy people's lives and homes - are they evil? How about similarly destructive floods and hurricanes like Iniki - also evil?...

Really, you see no difference?  These are not the product of man's imagination.

[ironyak]

Lava flows and eruptions (aka Pele, an embodiment of Pele, or perhaps Pele's abode for the believers) aren't a product of man's imagination either. Are lava flows and eruptions evil?

[TomK]

Lava flows and eruptions (aka Pele, an embodiment of Pele, or perhaps Pele's abode for the believers) aren't a product of man's imagination either. Are lava flows and eruptions evil?

If they are caused by a god or goddess to destroy  700 homes, make people evacuate and lose their jobs and livelihoods, I would have to say the god or goddess that caused the lava flow wasn't a particularly nice entity, and yes, I would go as far as calling them evil for all the suffering they caused. It would be nice one day to meet a god that doesn't cause wars, doesn't encourage slavery, won't create pestilence and plague, or make people suffer from terrible illnesses, and instead just makes everyone really friendly and healthy. 

But no such god exists. Instead, we have people survive a disaster, say it's a miracle they survived, while the god that created that miracle burned everyone else to death in a disaster that an omnipotent god was capable of preventing.

[ironyak]

TomK - If they are caused by a god or goddess to destroy 700 homes, make people evacuate and lose their jobs and livelihoods, I would have to say the god or goddess that caused the lava flow wasn't a particularly nice entity, and yes, I would go as far as calling them evil for all the suffering they caused.

So if a god/dess causes the lava flow and consequent destruction and suffering, the god/dess is evil, but if nature is the cause of the the exact same lava flow and consequent destruction and suffering, nature is somehow not evil? Why isn't nature held to the same moral standards as the gods and goddesses? Or is anything that causes destruction and suffering to be considered evil?

Imagine that god/dess and nature are two words describing the same thing - a collection of processes and forces largely outside of human understanding, prediction, or control. Why does simply changing the label for the exact same set of events create differing moral implications and expectations?

TomK - a god that doesn't cause wars [etc, etc]. But no such god exists.
Prove it.

[MyManao]

Tomk (in the second post of this entire thread said): I don't think this thread is going to last long..

You know, the interesting thing is.. had you not said a thing, you would have probably been right. Again.. that old saying (that I made up) about the power of silence..

TomK (again, in the second post of this entire thread said): As for Pele, well, the Big Island is less than a million years old, but somehow a goddess was created there. Who or what created Pele?

And I have to wonder, after the reams of discussion, after the many links to reference material, including the Hawaiian's creation chant in which if you bothered to read it you would learn otherwise, whatever lead you to think she was created on the Big Island?

TomK - But no such god exists.

And, as Yak so astutely notes, and I add so as to ask the same because I too would like more than flippant rhetoric.. prove it.

[Durian Fiend]

...Imagine that god/dess and nature are two words describing the same thing - a collection of processes and forces largely outside of human understanding, prediction, or control. Why does simply changing the label for the exact same set of events create differing moral implications and expectations?

TomK - But no such god exists.
Prove it.

But nature isn't largely outside of our understanding, prediction, or even to some extent, control. 

Nor is it synonymous with god for very many people.  The example Tom gave of someone claiming a miracle had occurred, sparing suffering for some individual, was pertinent to the original story that started this discussion. In other words, the intervention of an omnipotent god.  

You want him to prove volcanology is a valid science?

[ironyak]

DF - But nature isn't largely outside of our understanding, prediction, or even to some extent, control.
Trying to keep it local and as relevant as possible, I'd say the 2018 eruption indicates otherwise? When the Pu'u 'O'o crater floor collapsed, no one was predicting 24 fissures and the complete inundation of Kapoho in the coming months. It would seem that whole Pele-driven event from start (why did Pu'u 'O'o dramatically change after ~35 years?) to finish (what triggered the end? Why did it not go on a month shorter or a year longer?) was "largely outside our understanding, prediction, and control."

DF - Nor is it synonymous with god for very many people.
Agreed - but I think there is a greater overlap, or perhaps even near total synonymy, than many people realize for cultures with polytheistic and animistic beliefs like those in the Hawaiian religion. From my somewhat limited interactions, these beliefs seem to result in a different way of experiencing, conceptualizing, and interacting with the world. Others could probably speak with greater depth and clarity on these matters though.

DF - You want him to prove volcanology is a valid science?
Nope, just want him to prove his assertions including "No matter what, we're dealing with gods and goddesses who seem quite evil, according to what you posted", "If they are caused by a god or goddess to destroy 700 homes, make people evacuate and lose their jobs and livelihoods, I would have to say the god or goddess that caused the lava flow wasn't a particularly nice entity, and yes, I would go as far as calling them evil for all the suffering they caused", and "a god that doesn't cause wars [etc, etc]. But no such god exists", given the burden of proof is on him as he's the one making the claims.

Tom and I both have scientific backgrounds so we may be a little more used to these sorts of discussions where you're tasked with defending your claims by providing evidence and reasoning and having that evidence and reasoning cross-examined, but I hope it is of some value to anyone else who is reading along and/or participating. I can try to answer questions about some of the underlying topics of epistemology, empiricism, the scientific method, etc, if anyone has an interest, and Tom could likely share sources and related info as well should he wish, with MyManao being able to provide a greater depth of experience and understanding of volcanology and Hawaiian history and culture.

[Durian Fiend]

Ok, we will wait for his response.
The “no such god exists” comment was directly following his wish for a god that didn’t do bad things, just made people happy and healthy. If you know of such a god, please advise. Pele certainly wouldn’t qualify.

I think you guys are assuming he’s denying the existence of all gods in general, which could be the case but it’s not exactly what he said.

[TomK]

TomK - If they are caused by a god or goddess to destroy 700 homes, make people evacuate and lose their jobs and livelihoods, I would have to say the god or goddess that caused the lava flow wasn't a particularly nice entity, and yes, I would go as far as calling them evil for all the suffering they caused.

So if a god/dess causes the lava flow and consequent destruction and suffering, the god/dess is evil, but if nature is the cause of the the exact same lava flow and consequent destruction and suffering, nature is somehow not evil? Why isn't nature held to the same moral standards as the gods and goddesses? Or is anything that causes destruction and suffering to be considered evil?

Imagine that god/dess and nature are two words describing the same thing - a collection of processes and forces largely outside of human understanding, prediction, or control. Why does simply changing the label for the exact same set of events create differing moral implications and expectations?

TomK - a god that doesn't cause wars [etc, etc]. But no such god exists.
Prove it.

Seriously? I need to prove a negative?