Evil means a Christian God cannot exist?

Oh Sweetheart.
Were you a part of any of these?
Besides history lessons have they really affected you?
And finally have you done anything tangible for any of those people?
If you have then I concede.
But honestly those are not convincing reasons.
 
RaptorEngineer said:
Oh Sweetheart.
Were you a part of any of these?
Besides history lessons have they really affected you?
And finally have you done anything tangible for any of those people?
If you have then I concede.
But honestly those are not convincing reasons.
Click to expand...

So your saying that in order for something to matter it should affect me personally? Whatever happened to learning from the mistakes of others?

Whatever happened to the survival of the human race? If we continue to harbor hatred for each other and kill each other for no good reason, we won't be on this Earth for much longer.

A belief in a god or gods may not be harmful by itself, but when used to control people and when it spreads ignorance, prejudice, and hate, it will result in nothing but harm. As history has clearly shown.
 
So do something about it.
Please. I want to see a happy world just as much as the next person.
Happier is easier to be sure.

But if you're not doing anything about it how much does it really matter to you?
 
If religion justified those things in the past, they can justify them or similar atrocity in the future; our personal lives are potentially in danger.

Also, it is a naive anarchist indeed who says "Noone can make you do anything." The legal system is backed by more than theoretical authority.
 
But more than just religion has justified things like that.
To me those are unconvincing because a lot of people have exerted their will over other people and used a multitude of different justifications for it.

I'm not an atheist and I'm not a religious individual.
I just dislike the whole 'Only one side.' thing.
Christians dislike atheism for some reasons.
Atheists dislike Christianity for some reasons.
Both sides are capable of extreme evils because all people are.
The Nazis were Christian and the Bolsheviks were atheistic.

I'm not an anarchist either.
I just don't believe that anyone can stop you from being or doing what you want.
There are always consequences to everything but in your own mind you're always free.
That's what I'm getting at.
 
RaptorEngineer said:
But more than just religion has justified things like that.
To me those are unconvincing because a lot of people have exerted their will over other people and used a multitude of different justifications for it.

I'm not an atheist and I'm not a religious individual.
I just dislike the whole 'Only one side.' thing.
Christians dislike atheism for some reasons.
Atheists dislike Christianity for some reasons.
Both sides are capable of extreme evils because all people are.
The Nazis were Christian and the Bolsheviks were atheistic.

I'm not an anarchist either.
I just don't believe that anyone can stop you from being or doing what you want.
There are always consequences to everything but in your own mind you're always free.
That's what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...

The fact that other things can justify atrocity does not absolve religion from justifying atrocity.


And I argue that the freedom in your mind is like imagining nobility when you're a slave in chains; it's nice to say, but it holds little water in reality.
 
My favorite response to the evil argument was always that if such a being as god exists, it is possible that it has reasons for allowing us to perceive evil in this world that we would not and cannot understand. In fact, if such a being exists it is actually quite likely that we would not be able to understand its reasons.

One reason that we could understand however is that it is possible that while we may perceive evil, this is the best of all possible worlds. It could be that if you had been able to find your keys this morning, overall the world would have to have been a worse place. It is even possible that if you had found your keys this morning, any kind of universe would not have been able to exist at all, and we may have to assume that overall the universe existing is "better" than it not existing.
 
Best of all possible worlds has been mentioned. I think it's valid, but it's not mechanistic, it doesn't go into detail, doesn't explain how no better world could exist. Thus, while it refutes the original hypothesis (that evil contradicts the existence of a Christian God), to me it doesn't end the issue. It answers one question but raises another. Why can't there be a better world?

Beware of calling the question unanswerable. History has many cases of claims of limits of knowledge being busted. One example is it was once said we could never know the composition of stars. Then spectroscopy gave us a way to do just that.
 
I'm an atheist, but if I were to look at this from a Christian's perspective, I would say...

God did not create good or evil, he created life. Humans were given intelligence, and intelligence means that you have the capability to perceive, question the environment around you, and make decisions based upon that. If we did not have the capacity to perform actions that based on the moral code we have created are deemed as "good" or "evil", we would be bound by mental chains that would not allow us to perform any tasks. Good cannot exist unless there is evil, just as light cannot exist without darkness. It's merely a contrast in actions as a result of decisions.

/pseudo intellectual post
 
To argue that you would have to against your (general) base for believing in the Christian God: The Bible. To use your own head is very dangerous to any existing doctrine that is in power, and is generally argued against. However, if you were to meet a more open-minded Christian and were to dicuss such things with him/her, you'll find that most don't even know much about the history about the Bible, nor about the different perspectives formulated and pressed upon in it. For most Christians (and when I say Christians in this case I mean the majority of "Protestants") the case is more than just a logical fallacy. you have to argue against the source of their belief: The Bible. Even though it may have been given to them through a nice person, or a girlfriend they want to be with, or some guy off the street who gave you a pamphlet, the base of their many different and contradicting teachings are off the Bible. Anyone who claims personal inspiration is either sen to be a prophet or a devil in disguise. Take them to their roots, and see if they'll emerge the same again.
 
Philosoraptor said:
I'm an atheist, but if I were to look at this from a Christian's perspective, I would say...

God did not create good or evil, he created life. Humans were given intelligence, and intelligence means that you have the capability to perceive, question the environment around you, and make decisions based upon that. If we did not have the capacity to perform actions that based on the moral code we have created are deemed as "good" or "evil", we would be bound by mental chains that would not allow us to perform any tasks. Good cannot exist unless there is evil, just as light cannot exist without darkness. It's merely a contrast in actions as a result of decisions.

/pseudo intellectual post
Click to expand...
God is not at fault for the creation of evil because he created being that were capable of evil, he is at fault for the creation of evil because he created beings that were desirous of evil
 
desrious and capable are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. Would they desire it if they were not capable? In their desire their potential was seen.

Edit: Nvm, I see that there is a fine line for what people desire and what they can have. My opinion on this still stands, but I understand that there is more to what I have said and what is actually there.
 
Alaeri said:
Why everyone feels the need to discredit others' religion is absurb. Just because certain people in a religion feel the need to intepret and commit vile acts in the name of what they believe in doesn't mean the entire fucking religion is like that. Considering that Christianity is the most widespread religion, you're going to encounter more crazy fucks that are Christian.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to put my two cents in. I haven't read through all 10 pages of this thread so if this has already been addressed, I sincerely apologize. And I know I'm way off topic from the OP.

People feel the need to discredit other religions because theirs commands it. Christianity and Judaism state that "thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Other religions say very similar things. Vile acts are described in the Bible. "He who curses his mother and father shall surely be put to death." Children throwing a tantrum should be killed? I have not read the Quran before but I expect it has similar ideals what with recent events involving the funsamentalists Muslims. But you're correct, discrediting other religions because of your own faith is absurd.

I presume that your viewpoint is influenced by your Hindu background. Hinduism is a beautiful and poetic religion; I was born raised Hindu and stayed that way until recently. One of its core values is that all paths to God lead to the same place, meaning that all religions are equally valid so long as you have pure faith. However, taking this statement literally means that all parts of all the religions are correct, including the contradictory ones. Hinduism says that Christianity is correct, but Christianity denies Hinduism.

People who commit vile acts in the name of religion are not necessarily a statement about a whole religion. One must look at their way of thinking, temporarily suppose their holy scriptures or teachings are correct (regardless of what you believe, if only for the purpose of saying if the person is logical), and look to see if their argument makes sense or is natural from their scriptures. If a religion encourages vile acts then it's possible that the entire religion is like that. This does not however make a statement about the other people that follow that religion. If a person commits a vile act under a religious belief (which justifies the act) but others under the same belief do not, then the others are not vile and not as religious.

I'm not much for theology and philosophy but I thought I might try. :P
 
Alaeri said:
From a monotheist stand point, God is not evil but created people with intelligence therefore evil can and will exist.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. Intelligence does not entail any capacity to do evil.

According to Christian teachings the devil is there to sway the faithful. So basically it is a test. If you're faithful the devil can not sway you, but if you're greedy or what have you the devil's ideas sound promising and you turn your back on God. Therefore I believe God only wants the most faithful with him, whether in heaven or after the Last Judgement I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Greed is a character flaw, it has nothing to do with faith. In fact, many people are both faithful and greedy or otherwise sinful. It would seem more sensible to say that God wants good people with him, and that the devil is testing for moral uprightness.

Omniscient used in conjunction with God means that he knows what your intentions were and are because He knows when we are doing things for the wrong reasons. Do everything as if you were doing it for God. Nothing is set in stone.
Click to expand...

What if I believe God rewards sin? Why can't I do everything as if I was doing it for my fellow man, and hope God approves? That way I don't have to worry.

God is limited by His nature even though he is omnipotent. Therefore God cannot sin but has the power to forgive those who do. He can do anything that does not go against His nature.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if he can define sin to be anything he wants, it's not much of a limitation. If he suddenly felt like punishing Pokemon nerds, he could just arbitrarily decide that Pokemon is sinful. Since religion usually dictates that sin is whatever God, through holy texts he supposedly inspired, says is sinful, to say that God's nature is not sinful is like saying that God's nature is what God says his nature is, which is far from reassuring.

Quit taking shit so literally. I'm not Christian, but Hindu. Religion isn't based on facts but on faith, so it's not fair to say that one religion is wrong. Why everyone feels the need to discredit others' religion is absurb. Just because certain people in a religion feel the need to intepret and commit vile acts in the name of what they believe in doesn't mean the entire fucking religion is like that. Considering that Christianity is the most widespread religion, you're going to encounter more crazy fucks that are Christian.
Click to expand...

If crazy fucks can have faith, faith doesn't seem such a good criterion for heaven, does it? If people can commit atrocities in the name of religion, shouldn't that prompt God to promote atheism, just so that people can fuck up without insulting him?

It does and it doesn't. This has to do with interpretation. Therefore "thou shalt have no other Gods before me" means something different from one person to the next.
Click to expand...

Well geez that's convenient :(

You forgot to mention that it's also what one chooses to call the ultimate truth therefore it's not contradictory.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. What one chooses to call something has no bearing on whether it is contradictory or not.
 
Brain said:
Greed is a character flaw, it has nothing to do with faith. In fact, many people are both faithful and greedy or otherwise sinful. It would seem more sensible to say that God wants good people with him, and that the devil is testing for moral uprightness.
Click to expand...
It is not sensible, god is supposedly omniscient so he would know which people what pass the test and would fail without ever needing to conduct it, he could easily just create only good people.
 
Brain said:
Yeah but if he can define sin to be anything he wants, it's not much of a limitation. If he suddenly felt like punishing Pokemon nerds, he could just arbitrarily decide that Pokemon is sinful.
Click to expand...
There are in fact people who honestly believe Pokemon is evil...

Since religion usually dictates that sin is whatever God, through holy texts he supposedly inspired, says is sinful, to say that God's nature is not sinful is like saying that God's nature is what God says his nature is, which is far from reassuring.
Click to expand...
In any event, I'm pretty sure there are actions the Bible said God did that are considered sinful if a man were to do them. Like killing however many thousands of people and animals by starting a flood.
 
Also, to adress Alaeri's primary point:

People feel the need to discredit religion because religion doesn't stick to it's areas of faith alone. Religious groups make statement of fact (and these are almost always WRONG). Religious groups use their religion as justification for all kinds of beliefs and behaviours, INCLUDING THE IMPOSITION OF THESE BEHAVIOURS AND BELIEFS ON OTHER PEOPLE.

For instance, no atheist organisation gets tax-exempt benefits, but every church does. Atheist beliefs are not protected by any freedom of religion laws except incidentally. Atheist beliefs are not protected by the antiblasphemy laws like those recently enacted in Ireland. Religious groups control the legal definition of marriage and limit who can get married, notably excluding homosexuals or alternative religious marriages. Religious groups control other aspects of the law, imposing their views on other people and mandating that they be followed (e.g. the campaigns to overturn Roe v Wade). In some places, religion controls the entire government and law, making it illegal to be who you are.

This is the reason that atheists are, especially recently, fighting this issue.
 
Regardless of religion, taking a life can be considered murder. Therefore, regardless of faith or lack of faith, an abortion can be considered infanticide. This could be argued to be wrong or amoral because it deprives the population of variety or potential to solve a major problem.

On the other hand there is the overpopulation thing. So secular arguments can at least be discussed on both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top