Evil means a Christian God cannot exist?

[MrIndigo]

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.

The concept of "life begins at conception or prior" is inherently religious in nature (because it ascribes value to a living creature beyond consciousness, usually but not always in a pseudo-spiritual sense), even if the people who follow it do not consider themselves religious.

As an unrelated aside, one of my first year law classes had an amusing discussion in it, where several students claimed that there were things considered 'wrong' that were universally and fundamentally wrong, regardless of particular moral code or society. The teacher said, "Okay, let's make a list of some." The first thing most students suggested was "Murder/killing someone."

The teacher then said: "Self-defence. Euthanasia." It transpired that we couldn't come up with a single thing that was fundamentally wrong across all civilisation.

 

[MrIndigo]

Just because there are individuals within a religious organisation who are not bad, there are still things inherent within religious doctrine that are abhorrent to those who don't follow it, and the religion at large's attempts to impress them upon others should be stopped, and that requires attacking the principles, not attacking the individuals.

On a more personal note, i.e. my own individual views, I don't believe that ANY belief should have a sacrosanct status. If your political beliefs, your beliefs about other races, other individuals, legal issues, artistic aesthetics, whatever; if all of those can be subject to scrutiny, then there is no reason that religious beliefs should be exempt just because someone (or even a lot of people) believes strongly in them. NO belief, of any kind, should ever be above scrutiny and above criticism.

 

[hobo bob]

While all of that is true and I agree with it, not everyone in a religion does those things. I've been personally attacked by almost every Christian I've met because of my sexuality and my views on things; such as abortion. I'm well aware of the fact that in America, where I live, there is no such thing as separation of church and state even though it is stated in our very Bill of Rights, the First Amendment in fact. I'm well aware that in the state of South Dakota my very rights as a woman have been violated because of religion. Do I agree with these things? Fuck no. Is the entire population of every religion like this? Fuck no.

Thank you. Sucks to hear that people treated you like that, I hate fanatics/zealots.

As an unrelated aside, one of my first year law classes had an amusing discussion in it, where several students claimed that there were things considered 'wrong' that were universally and fundamentally wrong, regardless of particular moral code or society. The teacher said, "Okay, let's make a list of some." The first thing most students suggested was "Murder/killing someone."

The teacher then said: "Self-defence. Euthanasia." It transpired that we couldn't come up with a single thing that was fundamentally wrong across all civilisation.

Genocide? Poverty? Rape? Twilight?

These are just a few I could think of in a minute...

 

[MrIndigo]

Genocide? Poverty? Rape? Twilight?

These are just a few I could think of in a minute...

Poverty isn't an 'act', it's a condition, and I'd argue that it's an inevitability given certain conditions in the world.

Genocide can be a subset of war, and not all war is unjustified; by extension genocide could conceivably be justified under similar conditions (for example, a threat of a particular population in a military attack against you could conceivably justify a genocidal policy)

Rape has an exceptionally varied definition, such that what is considered rape in one culture is normal behaviour in others. Some cultures didn't/don't even recognise 'rape', but instead recognise(d) unlawful use or damage to property in its place.

There's nothing that can justify Twilight, I guess. Cultural relativism can only go so far. :P

In any case, the point that the teacher was making is that the things you come up with off the top of your head are usually excused or excusable in particular circumstances. Universality of morals is a difficult thing to prove.

 

[cantab]

Poverty isn't an 'act', it's a condition, and I'd argue that it's an inevitability given certain conditions in the world.

When the idea of realtive poverty is (ridiculously) presented as the primary conception of poverty, that is indeed the case. An example of this kind of definition being wrongly used is here: http://www.ippr.org.uk/pressreleases/?id=2965
But really, those are issues for another thread.

 

[Champagne]

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.

In Philosophy, there are beliefs and there are values. Beliefs are particular to a religion or culture, while values are the underlying structures that form it all. Values may vary slightly, but are mostly alike in different cultures. Honor, respect, parenting, justice, etc... are values. Going to hell, heaven, etc, are beliefs.

So basically (I'm agreeing with you, is what I'm saying), just because someone is atheist does not mean they don't believe in the values religious kinds often attribute to their beliefs.

 

[Anachronism]

Maybe human suffering isn't bad? Maybe it is a good thing and that is why God doesn't stop it. This seems the most obvious to me. :/

 

[MrIndigo]

Maybe human suffering isn't bad? Maybe it is a good thing and that is why God doesn't stop it. This seems the most obvious to me. :/

Exactly. The argument raised by Brain and others is that it seems pretty bad to us, so it's about trying to work out what God's motives. How can what seems so bad to us really be good?

 

[Mike B]

I believe religion plays off of the concept: being differant. The whole schnitzel is a body of differing ideas.

 

[Champagne]

Religion is a comfortable lie without a mastermind. It's simply been added to and built up by those who believe it.

I love the Bible--- whether it was on purpose or not, the Bible has at least one small passage than can be broadly applied to a moral question; even if it is totally misleading. And then, as a failsafe, an equivalent contradicting passage... all while, of course, putting forth the facade that it is truly saying something very deep about the matter.

 

[The Beast]

Ummm evil is subjective, what's evil for some isn't necesseraly evil for someone else.
Same thing with suffering.
You may suffer when you get hit with a whip or you can suffer when somebody dies. Another person may not.

Maybe you need to deffine what's evil to fully answer the question.
Maybe somebody posted what I said before but I'm to lazy to read all the thread.

 

[lati0s]

Evil is not subjective when talking in the context of christianity because the bible defines evil

 

[The Beast]

So do a lot of other religions.

 

[lati0s]

yes, but the discussion in this thread is centered around Christianity so its definition is the only one that is really relevant

 

[mtr]

While all of that is true and I agree with it, not everyone in a religion does those things. I've been personally attacked by almost every Christian I've met because of my sexuality and my views on things; such as abortion. I'm well aware of the fact that in America, where I live, there is no such thing as separation of church and state even though it is stated in our very Bill of Rights, the First Amendment in fact. I'm well aware that in the state of South Dakota my very rights as a woman have been violated because of religion. Do I agree with these things? Fuck no. Is the entire population of every religion like this? Fuck no.

Christianity in America is more salient than Christianity in other developed countries (UK, France, Spain, Germany, etc). Its been proven by a thousand surveys, studies, and articles.

Just from personal experience, even where I used to live, Portland (probably the most liberal-minded city in the US) I had to deal with preachers on the street screaming stuff like "Let Christ save your soul" at me (I'm Hindu, and Indian). I'm paraphrasing, but that's the point. More recently, Christian fanatics disrupted an Portland India Day festival, which understandably provoked some annoyance.

The missionary bent of SOME believers of Abrahamic faiths, even in the modern era, has puzzled me. Granted, most people are NOT Jerry Falwell incarnate, but still it surprises me that they cling to their medieval mindset that Jesus is the only way to a happy afterlife.

 

[MrIndigo]

It becomes less of a puzzle when you see other kinds of learned behaviour people do. Most people are voraciously religious because they have learnt not to be otherwise.

 

[mtr]

It becomes less of a puzzle when you see other kinds of learned behaviour people do. Most people are voraciously religious because they have learnt not to be otherwise.

What do you mean by that? That such people see religion as a bulwark against the perceived moral depravity in the world, and because of that are drawn into things like dogmatism and intolerance? Or that they have no concept of religious tolerance because that's just how they've been raised by church and family?

 

[MrIndigo]

What do you mean by that? That such people see religion as a bulwark against the perceived moral depravity in the world, and because of that are drawn into things like dogmatism and intolerance? Or that they have no concept of religious tolerance because that's just how they've been raised by church and family?

The latter. Most religious people have been raised in a religion, and so consequently it has shaped the way their mind has developed since they were an impressionable child. Thus for many, it is inconceivable that their religion is wrong, which then can lead to the attempts to 'save' others (because to them, it's equivalent to warning someone away from touching a fatally electrified fence, or some such).

 

[The Beast]

yes, but the discussion in this thread is centered around Christianity so its definition is the only one that is really relevant

Oh right right, I was in a hurry so I didn't pay much attention to that xD

 

[Terminator]

Nice.

 

[MrIndigo]

Nice.

1) True, but not entirely meaningful. Almost anything can be theoretically possible. The fact is, atheism still causes less violence today than religion does, not even taking into account their ancient histories.

2) I agree with the headline, but not with the expression therein. When a religious person espouses their religion, I don't hear "I want everyone else to go to hell." etc. (In fact, if anything, it's the opposite).

3) Yep.

4) Yep.

5) I'm not sure. I understand that they ARE offended, but it's legitimacy I'm not entirely convinced of.

6) I try not to personally, but it does happen with others.

7) As above. His philosophy about free will and the like is not entirely relevant or accurate.

8) Not necessarily.

9) Again, difficult to say because of the problems with definition of morality.

10) Agreed, but his advice is terrible. "Tolerate intolerance and they'll stop" is a misconception, particularly since it usually implies being placid and allowing one group to dictate the rules binding the other. Many people take tolerance (or even being ignored) as evidence that they're right.

 

[Sheshi]

If someone said something demeaning and rude to you, would you want to dignify such an insult with a remark? Tolerance or ignoring them is actually a significant moral victory.

 

[MrIndigo]

If someone said something demeaning and rude to you, would you want to dignify such an insult with a remark? Tolerance or ignoring them is actually a significant moral victory.

It depends on the context; certainly if it's a single isolated incident, then the effort involved in making a point of it is too much. But if it's part of a consistent system of denigration, then 'tolerance' is not actually helping, you're just allowing them to spread their intolerance to others.

If you actually want to bring about a more harmonious world, you need to correct them so that they don't continue to spread their fallacious views.

 

[Ritz]

I'm just going to address the free will one, since all the rest of the questions ultimately talk themselves in circles:

Hypothetically "God" could have given us free will in the same way we give "free will" to a pet. Yes, we could control their voice by giving them a shock collar, control their actions by punishing them, control their movement by shutting them in a cage, control their opinion by starving them when they don't like the new food.

But we choose to let them outside, even knowing they could get loose or hit by a car, because we want them to have that freedom and to be happy. We choose to let them roam the house with us even knowing they could make a stupid decision and we might regret it, and even when they DO we tend to only regret it for a short while before seeing them miserable makes us guilty and we let them free again.

Obviously it's on a different scale, but same concept. We could control everything they do, but why? Why even have a living thing then?

On that note I'm athiest, so forgive me if it's crude and not as eloquent as some explanations probably were.

 

[jc104]

I'm just going to address the free will one, since all the rest of the questions ultimately talk themselves in circles:

Hypothetically "God" could have given us free will in the same way we give "free will" to a pet. Yes, we could control their voice by giving them a shock collar, control their actions by punishing them, control their movement by shutting them in a cage, control their opinion by starving them when they don't like the new food.

But we choose to let them outside, even knowing they could get loose or hit by a car, because we want them to have that freedom and to be happy. We choose to let them roam the house with us even knowing they could make a stupid decision and we might regret it, and even when they DO we tend to only regret it for a short while before seeing them miserable makes us guilty and we let them free again.

Obviously it's on a different scale, but same concept. We could control everything they do, but why? Why even have a living thing then?

On that note I'm athiest, so forgive me if it's crude and not as eloquent as some explanations probably were.

The issue with this is that pet owners are not all powerful. For them it is necessary to take risks for the overall happiness and wellbeing of their pet. Since God is supposed to be all-powerful, he is capable of enriching our lives fully and allowing us to be happy without doing so.

You ask why there would be any point in life at all then? The simplest answer to this that either God doesn't exist, does not care about us or is not all-powerful. Free will is not an explanation for why God created life. There is in fact no good reason for this. If he really loves us all so much, why do we not all simply go straight to heaven? By the way, to all of you who are suggesting that the world is as good as it can be, you have to remember that many of you do in fact believe in such a place as heaven, where there is no evil. Also, another curious question: do we have free will in heaven? From what has been suggested, since there is no evil in heaven, we cannot have free will there. Therefore perfection can be achieved without free will, which means that by providing it, God is knowledgably causing suffering.

By the way, it is not the argument's fault that we are cycling. That is the fault of people who (understandably) have not read the whole thread, and of people who know they are losing an argument trying to stall.