PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
I agree, I'd like to see a good theist defense of this. In all the time I've researched religion I never have.
Richard Dawkins recent movie "The Root of Evil?" came to mind when reading your post. Check it out.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
There is no defense of this because this idea is irreconcilable. However, within the realms of irrationality (or for the sake of being politically correct; religion), this idea is explained by the fact that God does not want you to know and you are too human to understand. Just be a good sheep and follow the shepard. The answers will come once you die. I would like to see an explanation of this from a theist, because from my view point. God is a paradox.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Of course, but that's not how The Yaweh Uber Alles see it.
See, God is the leader of an invisible army that is constantly waging war against the also invisible armies of Satan for humanity's souls. Whenever you want to do something that's fun, frivilous or, heaven forbid, not completely directed toward confirming your enlistment in Invisible army #1 then you're being tempted by Satan, or perhaps a Field Marshall in Invisible army #2 but for sure at least a subcommandante because, at ranks lower than that, they just pretty much make sure all women stay evil temptresses and aren't really in charge of New Evil.
All of the world's evils are because God has a secret plan that depends, in part, on some children being born without arms, botflies, smallpox, tsunamis and tornadoes and other such stuff. Also, everyone born with a horrible disease or maimed in a horrible accident deserves it. But, rest assured that God is working in those mysterious ways again and you should be glad if he decided to include you in the Stage IV Cancer Brigade! Thank Jesus for anthrax!
So, see, it makes perfect sense when you break it all down! You just need to have more faith and things that don't make any fucking sense whatsoever will suddenly become clear as a bell. It's kinda like psychosis, which is part of God's Super Intelligent Design, too, by the way.
and ya know what? a christian teacher pointed that out in my history class. i greatly respect him for his unbias in that situation. one of very few times i have encountered that.
In a sense, you are very correct, and the bible agrees! God is the creator of all things. Who made Lucifer? Who sent him to the garden? Who gave satan permission to totally ruin Job's life? ...God. So, yes, God did make people and people are evil, and God did allow evil things to happen. No theist or biblical-christian could deny that. The difference, is that God does not author evil. Meaning, he does not perform evil and does not force anyone to do evil. If he did, then he would be a sinner and evil himself.
But in another sense, you are wrong. We must define what evil is. it's not a substance or anything that is tangible, nor is it a person or disease that's floating around in the air. It's simply the absence of good. Evil cannot really be "created." It only exists when good is totally absent or perverted. There must be a fixed standard of 'good' already in place for us to know and realize what evil is.
But even if God did "create" evil, does that mean that he is evil? If so, then God is not a creator at all, he would be the creation. There is a Creator/Creature distinction we must remember. God is not what he creates. If he created all things, God cannot be all things. Or else, he would merely be a part of creation, and not a creator at all. When I write a song, do I become the song? No. But I wrote the song by my pleasure and for a purpose. As the artist, I have the full authority to do whatever I choose with that song. So it is with God. If he is the creator of all things, then he would - logically speaking - have the right and would be just in doing whatever he pleases. Therefore, the Bible teaches that God allowed the "absent of good", and that he had a purpose in doing so.
It seems the big issue at hand is the problem of pain and suffering. It is probably the most frequent cause of the agnostic and atheists that I know. But is pain and suffering evil? Obviously, they are not. We know by nature that not all pain and suffering is bad. If we didnt feel pain whenever we touched a burning stove, our flesh would burn up and we would suffer major injuries. Would you call that pain evil? of course not.
Pain and suffering are the results of evil, not evils themselves. And God allows evil to continue to exist, because evil is in the heart of man. For God to rid the world of evil, he would have to rid the world of mankind.
So in your eyes it's not evil to create people knowing ahead of time that you will kill every living creature (save Noah and friends), and then go ahead and kill every living creature?
He did this to remove sin, and sin returned almost instantly, this is not evil in your eyes? Or at the minimum this is not at least undesirable or inconsiderate actions?
Oh, well if that's the case then certainly you'd agree that God "authored" evil when he killed everyone on Earth that he knew before he created them, he'd have to kill them. He killed fetuses, women, babies, children, slaves, plants, cows, cats, dogs, insects, monkeys, should I go on? That is certainly the absence of "good."
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Defining evil in terms of good is idiotic. Actions have positive, neutral, or negative consequences. Allow me to illustrate: if you are walking by a charity and decide to give it $10, you have committed a good act. If you simply walk by, you have committed a morally neutral act. If you instead decide to steal $10, you have done an evil act. Evil is not merely the absense of good; the absense of good is the same as the absense of evil: moral neutrality.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
If you are defining evil in the absence of good, then you must first of all define "good". Obviously, this is a very subjective term at best. You are now dabbling into ethics/morality; all subjective. Of course we can say the ten commandments are the final word of good, and to do anything outside of those is "evil". However, I will remind you that murder seems to be in perfect harmony with god's will. Lying cheating and stealing and coveting are all part of our political system and are indeed intrinsic in the success of capitalism. So...it seems to me that the paradox lies within the definition of "good". One christian will tell you good is one thing, while another christian will tell you good is something else. While yet another christian/muslim/jew will murder you because of god's good will.
This is the fallacy of the argument here based on the fact that you do not want to charge god with creating evil, because that would intrinsically and fundamentally make god evil.
So now christians, in the face of rational questions by atheists or other rational folks have taken upon themselves to define good and evil based on their obvious omnipotence of what god is and what is not, and also on god's motives for the purpose of good and evil. uh huh.. Would this not place humans now inside the mind of god? There is the other fallacy.
This is an example of an irrational answer to a rational question. To answer the question rationally (ie admiting the paradox between god and evil) would lead one to think that perhaps there is no god. So the christians make up nice little reconcilatory stories to make themselves justified in believing in irrational ideas.
And if you say mankind is intrinsically evil, then you have to admit that god made man that way. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Plus let's not forget the whole omnipotence issue. If god created man, he then either must have known man would be intrinsically evil or capable of "evil" by whatever definition you want to use. It makes no sense and is completely irrational for anyone to try to rationalize an idea that is fundamentally irrational.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
well, now we're going back to the moral objectivity/subjectivity debate. you all seem to like to pick on God as being an evil tyrant. Each of you are using your own personal, subjective view of morality and goodness to point out his 'evil' acts. Then you still turn around and say, "morality is subjective! there is no absolute!" If that is the case, by what right do you have to call God - or another being - wrong? Perhaps God's standards are different from ours. Yet, you all want to make God fit into your own view of morality. If morality is subjective, then immorality is subjective as well. The only way we could know what his 'subjective' view of morality/immorality is, is if he told us.
Even so, this has nothing to do with the existence of God or not. if anything, all you can do is prove that God is evil, depending on who's subjective defiintion of morality you use.
May I ask the atheist, who/what created evil? or, shall i ask in a different way: what made evil 'evolve' into existence?
As a moral nihilist, I do not believe in evil. I believe in good (that which is beneficial), and in bad (that which gets in the way of the beneficial). Any talk of God being good or evil is a reductio ad absurdum that utilizes the theist's ideas about good and evil:
For example, the theist considers Hitler evil for killing a large number of people for the sake of racial purity. Is it any more legitimate to wipe out roughly all life on earth so as to morally purify it?*** We consider the use of nuclear weapons to be evil because of how indiscriminate and destructive they are, yet God had no problem wiping out two cities and all their inhabitants. Was every single person in Sodom and Garmorrah evil and sinful? Was there not one person - a child, perhaps - who was sinless? I hope that by this point you realize how hypocritical and absurd your idea of an omnimax deity is. This is what atheists mean when they say God is evil: by the very standards of theism, God is evil.
The typical theist response to this, of course, is "well, God can do whatever he wants." Absolutely true. But this is merely an invocation of the "might makes right" principle. It also makes a pathetically weak case for God's goodness.
***It also did not succeed, since no theist will deny that sin still exists.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
Please do not take my following comment sarcastic, smart elec or making fun of you. I am totally sincere in what i am about to say. Even though I do not personally hold to nihilism, I believe it is the most logical form of atheism in existence. I am totally fascinated by Nietzsche and other writers of this view. If I were to convert from my theistic background, nihilism would be the only other option. In other words, i'm glad to see someone like you in these discussions.
No, there was not one person - not even a child - in Sodom or Gamorrah who was sinless. No person is sinless. However, there was at least one man whom God spared, Lot and his family. He was righteous in God's sight, because he feared God and had faith in him. God warned them of the coming judgement so they could get out. Knowing that even Lot deserved destruction, God's mercy on him shows me that there is at least some amount of goodness in him.
The point was not for God to rid the world of sin. That is impossible as long as humans exist. The reason for destroying Sodom and Gamorrah & flooding the earth was to temporarily limit the growth of evil, not to banish it forever. If that could've happened then there is no need for Christ. The flood and the destruction of Sodom were also symbolic of creation starting over (redemptive history). Which is exactly what happened when Christ came, the creation process is starting all over to fill the earth with the knowledge of the Lord. To grow a new "garden of eden," if you will. So, your point that God failed is incorrect.
The difference between Hitler killing people and God killing people is because Hitler is a fallen man. We're all fallen men. When we hate people, it is usually never justifiable. However, God hates perfectly. He is the just judge. Whereas our judgements on people are not perfect, and are usually based from our selfishness. This is why God commands us to not murder, and to love our enemies, rather than hate them and fight against them. To suggest that he must obey every command his gives to us, is like suggestion a father having to obey every rule he gives to his child.
I've actually loosely posed this before as the "problem of good". Christians and most other theists like to presume an omni-benevolent God, then make excuses for the suffering in the world. I'm sure you are familiar with the usual aplogetics - nececessary suffering, greater good, character building, test if faith, yadda yadda. What if we try the opposite?
Let's assume that god is omni-malevolent. He wants us to suffer. He allows SOME good, to make are suffering that much greater.
What if God wills good to occur or allows it to occur to realise greater suffering?
Perhaps an infinitely evil god decides to let us have a few glimpses of kindness and tenderness in order to make our suffering that much more exquisite? You know, give us a taste of what might be, and then give your child cancer.
Let certain people have a good life, full of good cheer and good forture - only in order to inspire jealousy, pride and lust in the rest of us. Way to stick it in and break it off, god!
Take the big tsunami or the hurricane as evidnece of a perfectly evil god - this is consitent both with the punishment and the "test of faith" position as well as the necessary suffering position - the devil or the god as it may be is in the details and the perspective.. God is all-wicked and seeks to maximize despair. Add this disaster to all the others, the birth defects, disease, the existence of Carrot Top's career, and inequality (for example god let's certain people have good, happy lives in order to create jealousy and pride and envy - in this way he maximizes suffering). The maximization of suffering is what I'm looking at here.
You've, no doubt, heard the lame apologetic arguments along the lines of "of course god is all-good or perfectly good, but he has to allow some bad things to happen so you can apprieciate the good things; in this way god maximizes happiness" or even "god has to allow some evil for the greater good".
Let’s turn that in on itself, it is quite simple to do. A perfectly wicked god allows some good things to happen, so his creation suffers that much more.
The rest of the time he just outright punishes your ass. He allows good to create a greater evil in the form of jealousy, spite, envy and pride.
Sometimes, god is just flat out an asshole and is sending his wrath. Other times, god allows us little glimpses of kindness in the face of immense tradegy in order to twist the knife in a little deeper and make the pain that much more unbearable. After all, if you were simply beaten every day of your life and had no better position to compare your situation to, your suffering would not be maximized by comparison. It is the little glimpses of happiness that make the world unbearable, not the tragedies.
To take a cue from Albert Camus:
“Beauty is unbearable, drives us to despair, offering us for a minute the glimpse of an eternity that we should like to stretch out over the whole of time. “
This is why the "necessary evil", "freewill", and "original sin" and similar arguments fail - they can equally be applied to an omnibenevolent or an omnimalevolent deity. It is all a matter of presumption and how one views the situaiton - this should be obvious, at least it is obvious to me.
And then of course when you die, god gets to torture and/or shun you for all eternity.
How omnimalevolent art thou Lord!
The point is, both arguments will ultimately fail logically given what we can observe about the world, but will none the less be proven in the eyes of the believer. The indoctrined perspective is what is important here.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I haven't even taken off my shirt yet.
I have actually recently reconsidered (rather, re-assessed and re-labelled) my view. I think formally speaking, I fit into the 'ethical objectivist' category. But I do align with Nietzsche's ideas, still.
This defense of god shows that he is not all-evil, but merely mostly-evil. I never claimed that God is truly or all evil (such an idea is utterly ridiculous, as is its opposite).
Your God is nowhere near omnipotent if your account is correct. Symbolism is utilized in order to make an idea more apparent (in the case of a literary approach), or to appeal to the masses, like a shiny quarter to a bunch of kids.
Original sin cannot logically be blamed on humanity. The humans in Eden were like animals: perfectly ignorant of moral principles (until they bit of the apple). Therefore, they did not truly possess the faculties necessary for understanding that their actions were wrong. Therefore, it is God's fault (for stepping out of the garden - how very ungodlike) for not granting Adam and Eve the necessary moral compass to decline the offer of the snake. Ironically, they gained it.
Don't you think it would be cruel to put two children, fully incapable of making moral judgements, into a room full of sweets, tell them not to eat anything, and expect them not to eat any of them (while a soothing voice nudged them on)? After they ate some cookies, you'd kick them out forever and curse their offspring. Come on. And why was the snake allowed to roam around the garden of Eden? "Business" with the big G man? The Judaic creation story is as ridiculous as any other mythological one. The Greek, Persian, Indian creation stories don't make sense, and neither does this one. It's mythology and should be viewed as such.
Ah, so calling god good is thus pointless and wrong.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
>This is why God commands us to not murder, and to love our >enemies, rather than hate them and fight against them
I really suggest you read the Bible again. God tells his followers to kill unbelievers, enemies, and just about everyone else many times.
No, they weren't ignorant. Where do you base that from? The Genesis account has Adam and Eve ruling in the garden, obeying every command of God's. He gave them strict rules, and told them the consequences if they disobeyed. They knew the difference between right (obeying God) and wrong (disobeying God) even though they hadn't yet commited a disobedient act. it was when they were deceived for a brief moment through temptation that they fully "knew" and had their "eyes opened" to what disobedience is like. They knew they were disobeying him, but they did it anyway, cuz they desired the fruit. have you never done anything against your own conscience even when you knew there would be consequences? I sure have, I do it all the time. But if your problem is with their being a law in the first place, then you need to take that up with the lawgiver.
Comparing the fall of man to two children not being able to eat cookies is a pretty poor analogy. But, if we must use it, I will answer. If I am the parent, the one who made the children and have authority over them, if i decide that they should not eat candy & they disobey me, there will be a consequence. This is simply good parenting. Instead of asking how could God do such a thing, maybe you should ask how could parents do such a thing. (unless you disbelieve in parents giving children rules/restrictions.)
And as their parent, I would not kick them out of the family or disown them. God did not do this to Adam or Eve. He simply removed them from the Garden, where the fruit existed. So, I would probably remove my children from the room with cookies, since I could not trust them to obey me anymore.
God did not curse Adam's offspring. Adam cursed us. Big difference. God said, "here's what's gonna happen if you disobey me, you will no longer live forever, you will die." Adam knew the consequence, but was selfish, and did it anyway. It is Adam's responsibility and therefore he is the one to blame for the "curse." But again, if you have a problem with the law existing in the first place, you need to take that up with the lawgiver.
God only cursed the snake & the ground. In fact, even during the midst of Adam's disobedience God promised him and his offspring hope, and restoration. The seed of Eve would later destroy the serpent, and God also provided the means for Adam and Eve to repent of their disobedience. Sounds like mercy to me.
how did you get that from anything i said? I said God is perfect, his judgements are just. If this is true, why is it pointless and wrong to call God good?
aaaaaah, but put those commands into context. they were for certain situations and judgements. not a permanent, general rule to kill all infidels and enemies. That's the koran, not the bible.
in the old covenant, before God's spirit dwelt within his followers, he came and appeared to men at different times in their lives, and gave them specific direction. But in the new covenant, the spirit lives in all those who believe, and the permanent rule is to "love your enemies, do good to those who hurt you." it is not a christian's job to take up arms and seek revenge or blood.
That's why He commands us not to, right?
"You shall not murder." -Exodus 20:13
Just because it's accepted doesn't make it right.
If it was socially accepted for men to celebrate their fiftieth birthday by killing an innocent child, would that mean it was morally acceptable?
No. See the fallacy of your argument?
Christian's don't murder for "God's good will"; just because the catholics did that during the Crusades/Inquistion doesn't mean that Christianity stands for that, much less endorses it.
Christians read the Bible and base their faith around it's teachings; catholic doctrine doesn't put any importance on the Scriptures, and you can see how great of a name they've made for themselves because of that.
God made man intrisically evil?
"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." -Genesis 1:31
God created us, and we were initially "good".
" The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."
-Genesis 6: 5-7
Turns out, we were the ones who spiritually demoted our altruism and righteousness. We became wicked.
God is omniscient.
Yes, He knew that man would eventually create a world of sin; but that doesn't mean He caused man to create the world of sin.
Agreed. So stop.
God wiped them out as an execution of righteousness.
Sodom and Gomorrah were cities known for their godlessness and debauchery.
God doesn't tolerate wicked, and the people of the Earth knew that, but were unaffected.
There really is no middleground for the atheist to settle on:
If God didn't reprimand them, the skeptic could assert, "If there is a God, and He's righteous and hates sin, why would He allow people to be this godless and full of drunken debauchery? What sort of Father-figure is that?"
but no, once God shows some authority in His creation, all of the sudden the skeptic laments, "How could God do that to someone and still claim to be a just God?"
essentially, what's being begged is,
"How could God get rid of evil, and still be a just God?"
irrationality at it's finest.
no one would argue that our law system is unjust because it punishes wicked acts.
Everyone that was destroyed deserved it.
Sounds harsh, but it's true.
There was "one person, a child perhaps- who was not sinless"; there were Lot and his two daughters.
the entire account of Sodom and Gomorrah shows God's mercy and just righteousness.
Abraham pleads with God, "What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" [Genesis 18: 24-25]
God agrees: "The LORD said, 'If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake." [Genesis 18: 26]
Abraham then asks, "what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?" [Genesis 18:
28]; God agrees. [Genesis 18:28]
Then Abraham asks for the limit to be just forty people (Genesis 18: 29); then thirty (Genesis 18:30), and so on and so forth, until he bargains with God down to the very bottom: "Then he (Abraham) said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?".
God mercifully agrees, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."
Read Genesis 19.
Not even ten people could be found that were righteous.
The only ones who survived were Lot and his two daughters.
That's it.
The point wasn't to permanently eradicate sin.
God said "dont do it"; man did it.
It's man's fault, not God's.
For you to disguise the situation with pseudo-intellectual, unfounded propositions shows the weakness of your argument.
Perfectly ignorant of moral principles?
"And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
-Genesis 2:16-17
Adam most certainly was NOT "ignorant of moral principles"; he was told to not eat the forbidden fruit.
[*Scripture doesn't say it was an apple.]
God did offer them the "moral compass"; He told them what was going to happen if they chose disobediance; they didn't care. Your attempts to justify disobedience to God remain futile.
Cite verses and don't take them out of context.
There's a difference between executing the wicked and murdering the innocent.
How you would quote this to prove that God wants His people to kill His enemies is ridiculous. Read the entire passage.The passage begins at Luke 19:11 and ends at Luke 19:27.
Here's the passage:
While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.' "But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.' "He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it. "The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.' " 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.' "The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.' "His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.' "Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.' "His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?' "Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.' " 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!' "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
The last part is the entire point of the parable: those who don't choose to be on God's side will, in the end, be destroyed in front of God. [see Revelation 14:10]
-adamryan
"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins
I concede: I am not a Biblical scholar, and view it on equal footing with mythologies from any other ancient culture. Anyone who believes that it is somehow more real than any other myth is indulging in fantasy.
However, the counterargument works just as well: an all-evil God created Eve, and since he is all-knowing, knew she would eat of the apple. It was a game she was bound to lose. And he annihilated Sodom and Gamorrah for the fun of it. An analogy is an omnipotent doctor working on a cancer patient, and chopping off his arm, while knowing that metastases would soon create tumors elsewhere. Of course, he has the ability to get rid of the cancer entirely because he is omnipotent, but prefers to cause the patient to suffer indefinitely.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
Ok, I will take that challenge......you asked, what made evil evolve into existance......well, how about the human affinity for species survival? We judge things from many years of evolution, and those that believed killing thier newborns was a good thing quickly died out as a species. Suffering of others isn't good for the species, murdering each other isn't either. As humans began to live in communities, we found that stealing isn't good for the community as well, and so on and so forth. To me, this is by far a much better answer to your question than 'god did it'.
1 - Absence of Good is apathy i.e. Doing things because you want to. Evil is the opposite of Good i.e. Doing things because it hurts other people.
2 - Evil does not float around in the air, much in the same way Good doesn't float around in the air. You are really talking about two subjective terms.
So whose fault is it that people get cancer?
Whose fault is it that babies are born birth defects?
Whose fault was Hurricane Katrina?
Whose fault was the San Francisco earthquake?
(I could go on and on with examples)
Whoever was the cause of these evils, we should hunt them down and prosecute. Just as I cannot be held responsible for what my parents, siblings or friends do if I am not involved, I cannot be held responsible for an "original sin."
As for evil being in the heart of man, according to theists god created man and therefore put the evil there.
Can anyone hear my eyes rolling because not a whit of that makes sense?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Good and evil are merely concepts based on subjective morality. They do not exist. Even if they did exist in biblical form of some kind, they cannot exist in absolute form. Every action has an opposite reaction. In order to do an act of good, you have committed an act of evil. By saving a patient, you killed the poor bacteria that's just trying to survive.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"God, if he be good, is not the author of all things, as the many assert, but he is the cause of a few things only, and not of most things that occur to men; for few are the goods of human life, and many are the evils, and the good only is to be attributed to him; of the evil other causes have to be discovered."- Plato in The Republic
Hi all,
"I agree, I'd like to see a good theist defense of this. In all the time I've researched religion I never have."
Heck, let an atheist take a whack at it. I'm certainly no cheerleader for God, but I have my own difficulties with arguments having to do with evil.
Okay, so God created evil. What's your point? Let's go back and say that God decided NOT to create evil, to make the world nothing but butterflies, fluffy kittens, and Milky Way Midnight bars. By what standard, then, would we judge anything in the Creation to be "good?" I say that "good" would no longer exist as a concept. Fluffy kittens would not be "cute" or "cuddly" or "good," they would simply be...kittens. Would not life simply be incredibly boring if we did not have "evil" to compare "good" to? If God exists, He was doing us all a favor by creating evil!
When I'm severely depressed, I sure don't like it. But, at the very least, the next time I'm very happy I can look back, recognize when I was depressed, and appreciate my happiness based on that recognition of having once been depressed. So, God or no God, life without these "opposites" would just plain SUCK.
If this ground hasn't been covered somewhere in philosophy already, and I'm sure it has, then I submit we have within it a very powerful argument against both Heaven and Hell: both of these "places" lack their polar opposite, and both would, after some passage of time in eternity, become horrible domiciles in which to dwell. Ergo, all of religion just plain bites.
Please be gentle when you tear me apart on this, I am a cyber-hemophiliac...
WIN this thread?
hahaha
-adamryan
Perhaps, heheh. Although this seems to be a slow forum at times, so a reaction to your post may still follow.
Anyway, I am not into this to "win" anything, but I found one point in your post really interesting:
Now that is really cool. So sin is not caused by God...
...or by anything created by God, I suppose- otherwise the argument would be valid that I did not break the window, but the rock I just hurled in the direction of the window broke it- in other words, I am not accountable, if you want to put the blame anywhere, put it on the rock
But if sin is not created by God or by anything caused by God, sin is an "uncaused cause". Which means that God is not the only "uncaused cause" in the universe! And that leads me to the following questions:
Which other uncaused causes are there in the universe? Could the universe itself, perhaps, be an uncaused cause as well? (because the Bible talks about God creating heaven and earth, but not space and time!). And more importantly perhaps, what does that mean for us? And for God?
If God were all loving then the Eagles would never lose to the Redskins and the Redskins would never lose to the Eagles and neither would lose to the Cowboys. On a related note, The Fox News Channel has discovered scientific proof of a square circle.
I hope this sarcasm doesn't violate the "kill em with kindness" motif. If it does, delete it or move it, I'll understand.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Close, but no cigar. The moment the conscious decision was made by man to violate what they were told, sin's existence began. And that surely is a causal event. I like that you're thinking on this level, though. Refreshing to hear from someone who isn't a total idiot. **cough "majority of people in the atheist community**
1) An eternally perpetuating mechanism for universes, while clearly not logically impossibly, seems to rely mostly on hazy theory. When I read Paul Davies' book The Goldilocks Enigma, it was the most fascinating (imo) part for me. It certainly seems to be the only way out for atheism. Ex nihilo creation, though, seems much more likely. Read anything from Dr. William Lane Craig or Dr. Hugh Ross.
Interesting, if nothing else.
And btw, the Hebrew for "heavens" {hashamayim} doesn't only mean "sky". It can mean:
[08064, from Strong's Hebrew Lexicon]
So actually, when in Genesis it says that God created the heavens and the earth, it actually is saying that God was creating space and time (the two are intrinsically connected).
-adamryan
"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins
Huh? Which "man"? Or are you suggesting that all the humans got together in a huddle somewhere and decided that violation was feasible?
And if they did - who was doing the telling that they shouldn't? And had all "men" been told in any case by this entity? And if not, how many were then in the huddle and in what way should their decision have been used as justification to cast everyone into a "state of sin"?
You see the problem with the Adam & Eve fairy tale as allegory, don't you? Presumptuous and ignorant twaddle which is at best unhelpful and at worst detrimental to a true understanding of human behaviour. I seriously despair for people who peddle this crapology, apparently in all earnestness. What exactly are they afraid of?
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
1. So Adam and Eve knew the difference between good and evil before they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why have the tree there at all?
2. I always love the way one can go through the definitions and find a convenient match.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Adam & Eve only works as an allegory in a very limited and ignorant sense. The problem is the conscious decision presented in the story by which all humanity is condemned. Exactly what conscious decision does that represent? After all, it cannot represent an unconscious decision as that would simply render the moral of the story meaningless and transform the god character into a truly vindictive bastard.
Yet there has never been a time or an opportunity for humanity to behave - even in an allegorical sense - like the protaganists in the story, despite the fact that it is this assumption upon which the entire allegory rests its spurious logic. And worse, at least for those who would wish otherwise, the definition of morality and what represents right and wrong is something which we now know in its most basic sense as simply an extension of our own survival instinct, and in its more intricate sense as an evolving paradigm - something which had been evolving long before an Iron Age desert people chose to represent it so poorly in allegorical form and which has been evolving steadily ever since.
We live in an age now where our common understanding of fault, error and even "sin" has long ago rid itself of an equal desire to ascribe blame and is tightly bound to the notion that any sanction (or punishment) should be designed to cure the ill rather than simply penalise it. Any departure from that notion is seen as pointless, regressive even. Yet this parable, in which we are led to believe the "original sin" which taints us all even before we have ever done anything wrong was first conceived, is dominated by two elements repugnant to a modern notion of justice.
Firstly there is the condemnation of the innocent along with the "guilty". It's a common theme amongst that Iron Age people's writings, but why on earth we should hold it to be a valid standard of behaviour for a supreme being who is allegedly "better than us" by definition in this day and age defeats me. The other repugnant aspect to the story is the nature of the sanction - and by extension the nature of the being who imposes it. Having set up his dupes, who fall for his trap, this omnipotent and omniscient super-being then curses not only the transgressors but the entire race to be deprived of "innocence". As a parent, and as someone therefore who has relished and indeed been very much educated by the true innocence expressed by the very young, I can only wonder at the heartless and vindictive minds who concocted such a vile little story, and the horrific inhumanity embedded in their culture there must have been for them to believe even their own children were tainted with these "curses" from an allegedly "all-loving" creator.
But I have a fair understanding of Iron Age cultures, not just in the Middle East, and can understand how and why such casual barbarity found expression within religious belief of the day. What disgusts me is that people today should espouse it as wisdom. That sickens me.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Sometimes he commands us to kill not; sometimes he commands us to kill.
"For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death." --Exodus 35:2
"If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid" --Deut 21:18-21
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." --Lev 20:13
I don't claim to speak for LeftofLarry, but I suspect he was saying that in order to illustrate this point: any system offering a code of conduct that intrinsically implies that going against the code is "wrong" or "evil" has to solve the problem of paradoxical good. Be it the code of the Ten Commandments, the code of capitalism, the code of the U.S. Government, or anything, we must still ask ourselves who died and made these systems the official rule of thumb for all moral judgment? I'm not sure he was trying to argue that the existence of the ugliness in all these systems was acceptable.
Your statement here seems to suggest that you're under the impression that the Catholics are responsible for 100% of Christians violence and that we can all chuckle about that together because Protestants are different.
Not so, I'm afraid. What about witch burning? What about the Protestants who burned other Protestants alive for questioning the doctrine of the holy trinity? What about the violence and intolerance that characterized the Reformation? Protestantism exists only because holy wars were fought to ensure that it could. What about the genocide of Native Americans? Can't blame all of that on the Catholics.
Again, you're assuming that Protestantism is somehow more impressive and squeaky clean than Catholicism. The only reason catholicism seems more silly is because they actually have a decision-maker that decides what the scriptures mean so that everyone "agrees". Protestants flout this idea in exchange for the notion that everyone can read the bible and God will just miraculously grant them understanding; and if it means one thing to person A and another thing to person B, then both A and B are correct, because God is telling them different things. In other words, the only reason Protestantism is more difficult to ridicule than catholicism at all is because Protestants have evolved the ability to interpret their way out of everything at a much greater rate of success. That doesn't make them more right. That makes them better at baffling with bull.
Both forms of Christianity have to suffer contradiction and discrepancy, but Catholics only have to reconcile with the pope. Protestants have to reconcile with every other living protestant. (Unless, as would be expected, they've interpreted something which, to them, seems to suggest they don't have to, in which case, God is probably telling them they don't.)
Seems like an omniscient and infallible creative genius who wanted to invent a man free of sin would have eliminated that capacity from his creation, don't you think? We couldn't have BECOME wicked if it wasn't a possibility in the design.
It does, though. He created man with the capacity for sin, and so he can't get angry at man due to the design flaw. For example, I can't build a house and then get angry at the house and set it on fire when it falls down. Even though I didn't CAUSE the house to fall down, it's still my problem that it fell down. If God created man with the capacity for sin, he can't pretend like it's entirely our fault when we sin, just as I can't put a gun in another man's hand and then pretend like I'm entirely guiltless when he uses it. Maybe God should take some responsibility and confess that he's not infallible.
It also seems appropriate to raise you this classic dilemma:
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both willing and able? Then whence comes evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?
That's not a very good answer because there are only two possible explanations. Either A) the things that the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were doing were inherently wrong and God was punishing them for it, in which case there is a word superior to God's, in which case he is not omnipotent and is obeying a higher authority; or B) the things that the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were doing were wrong because and ONLY because God arbitrarily decided they were, in which case, God is a capricious bully. Take your pick.
Sounds like you favor the capricious bully. Sorry to hear that.
We'll see.
This assumes that drinking and sex are evils, which is assuming that Christianity has the one true understanding of morality, which I believe is the very thing being questioned in the OP. But who's keeping track?
Let us, just this ONE TIME, assume that God is law and he has to do something. Let's see where you take us.
Hm. You're setting up a false dichotomy here. Assuming Sodom and Gomorrah are evil and God has to act immediately, you've presented us with only two options: 1) God kills everybody, or 2) God doesn't kill everybody.
Really? An omnipotent being has only those two options available to him to solve this problem? Why not something a little less dramatic at first? For instance, why not set all of their houses on fire and be like, "Hey, if you all don't knock that sin business off, I'm not only going to let your houses burn to the ground, but I'll seriously consider killing you for the good of posterity." I mean, that would still be really bully-ish, but that tends to be the nature of police work. At least, though, he didn't have to kill anybody.
But no, God doesn't roll that way, it seems. Blood payment is always required. Crucifiction not surprising.
If he was really omnipotent, he could easily do it without killing everybody to get it done. But, since he was obviously invented by primitive oafs, we get the stabby-stabby killy-killy method of getting things done.
Our law system doesn't favor slaughtering law breakers. (Unless you live in Texas?)
Also, our law system doesn't claim to be infallible or that you're a thought-criminal for merely questioning it. In fact, questioning is encouraged. Big difference.
Yikes. Conversation ender right there. You seem to approve of frivilous murder, and I don't. Cheers, have a nice day.
And which version of the story again? The one where God is not omnipotent or the one where he's a capricious murderer who kills people he doesn't like for whatever reason he sees fit?
If I got to decide what did and did not constitute moral behavior, it would be very easy for me to destroy the culture of American football on account of it being godless (in this case: archeopteryx-less) and wrong. I mean, it just had to be done. In the name of goodness, as defined by me.
Cool. So he not only killed all those people on his own whim, but their deaths had only temporary purpose.
You also have to consider that God was eliminating all possible opportunites for rehabilitation. What if some of those people were sinners THEN but would later turn over a new leaf? God killed them and sentenced them all to hell out of impatience. Of course, you could argue that God is omniscient and he "knew" they would never turn over a new leaf, but if he's that omniscient, then he knew it was all going to come to this anyway, and he would have cancelled the man project from the get-go.
I think I've sufficiently kicked this dead horse.
Classic projection.
The plot thickens. First God creates man with the capacity for sin, even though he unfairly expects man to never exercise the capacity he's been given. But then god also makes the exercising of these capacities extremely pleasurable and abstaining from them very difficult. Then, because he is so very kind, God actually places an instrument of sin right under the man's nose, instructing him never to use it. (Not unlike scattering razor blades around a suicidal's apartment and acting like you're guiltless if anything happens.) Then, when the man (well, woman) comes upon this instrument and is tempted into using it---big surprise---God, the supposedly omniscient, somehow never saw this coming or else stood by and watched as the fall took place.
If the story of the Garden of Eden is true---highly doubtful---then God not only watched us fall, he orchestrated it. Like setting up a Domino Rally in the wind.
Perhaps not so futile as your attempts to justify his actions.
Not really. In both cases you're still a murderer.
After all, if we're executing a murderer for murder, it could very well be the case that the murderer believed he was killing in order to punish a wicked act, and now we are only killing him because we believe HE has committed a wicked act. But who will come to exercise the same justice on us? Where will the murder end? What prevents everything from spiraling into a good old-fashioned blood feud like in the old days?
The only difference is weather or not the murder YOU commit is endorsed by the state or some other authority. And since God is the ultimate authority because he said so, then he gets to murder whoever he wants and it's okay.
So... obey or die? You're right. That doesn't sound murderous or totalitarian at all.
The moment he fell for the setup you mean? Assuming the story is true at all even though there is no reason to suppose it is?
An interpretive attempt at "We have science, too!" (Always comes after the fact.)
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
i completely forgot about this thread. i'll followup with a response to all that has been posted, as soon as i get home.
-adamryan
"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins
Just wandering through a few topics I posted in awhile ago.
Actually, it does. It works like this: God caused man. Man caused evil/sin/whatever. Therefore god caused evil/sin/whatever, by creating man, which he knew would degenerate into evil/etc.
*Looks at post date*
*Looks at watch*
You must be taking your sweet time getting home eh?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Hey guys.
I am going to attempt to discuss some of the recurring questions and responses that have been popping up in this post.
Just to let you know, I am a theist, but more specifically, a Christian. So it is kind of obvious that I am going to be "taking" God's side.
This is definitely an interesting discussion. I have wrestled with it for yoears. There are still some things which do not make sense to me and so I hope that my upcoming "treatise" on the topic will be more of use to myself than anyone else.
It has been said that you can't expect anyone else to enjoy your "sermon" (the original speaker's words, not mine) if you don't enjoy it yourself.
In my post I am hoping to examine Epicurus' riddle in detail for it is very pointed, but also vital, in our examination of God. It can make all of the difference between whether the idea of God is even acceptable for us or not.
According to the love of Christ,
The Paladin
I am ThePaladin...I AM NOT A D&D SPINOFF! I HAVE NEVER EVEN PLAYED THE GAME! IN FACT, I HAVE NEVER EVEN SEEN HOW IT IS PLAYED! A Paladin is a Light Bearer. I hope to be a Light Bearer in the world as well, bringing all men the Good News of Jesus Christ. I want to help those who are blind, see again. I pray that all men may come to repentance.
Hey guys.
I am going to attempt to discuss some of the recurring questions and responses that have been popping up in this post.
Just to let you know, I am a theist, but more specifically, a Christian. So it is kind of obvious that I am going to be "taking" God's side.
This is definitely an interesting discussion. I have wrestled with it for years. There are still some things which do not make sense to me and so I hope that my upcoming "treatise" on the topic will be more of use to myself than anyone else.
It has been said that you can't expect anyone else to enjoy your "sermon" (the original speaker's words, not mine) if you don't enjoy it yourself.
In my post I am hoping to examine Epicurus' riddle in detail for it is very pointed, but also vital, in our examination of God. It can make all of the difference between whether the idea of God is even acceptable for us or not.
According to the love of Christ,
The Paladin
I am ThePaladin...I AM NOT A D&D SPINOFF! I HAVE NEVER EVEN PLAYED THE GAME! IN FACT, I HAVE NEVER EVEN SEEN HOW IT IS PLAYED! A Paladin is a Light Bearer. I hope to be a Light Bearer in the world as well, bringing all men the Good News of Jesus Christ. I want to help those who are blind, see again. I pray that all men may come to repentance.
Aaaaauuuuggggghhhhhh!!!!
Double post!!!!!!!