How can religion be evil?

731 posts / 0 new
Last post
Algebe's picture
@AJ777: The fire is a

@AJ777: The fire is a metaphor for something far worse which we cannot imagine, the absence of all good.

It's more than a metaphor in the minds of large numbers of Christians. And when Christianity ruled the West, its leaders brought the fire right into the real world.

the absence of all good

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you see good as a substance with independent existence, something that can be extracted and removed? I see good and evil as qualities of certain actions and people relative to their effect on other people.

AJ777's picture
If God is the source of all

If God is the source of all good, and a person rejects God choosing to be apart from Him. Then being apart from the source of all goodness would be torment. Evil is the lack or absence of good. Hell is evil because God and His effects are not able to be perceived by the occupants of it.

LogicFTW's picture
Have not noticed any examples

Have not noticed any examples of anyone that worships or prays to, or generally follows any god idea closely being "all good." Or even remotely close to that.

Algebe's picture
@AJ777: Evil is the lack or

@AJ777: Evil is the lack or absence of good.

How come your absolute morality is so relativistic?

If hell is evil, is it not also evil to condemn someone to hell?

Diotrephes's picture
AJ777,

AJ777,

"If God is the source of all good, and a person rejects God choosing to be apart from Him."

See the thing is I come from a very, very, very long line of Ammonite bastards so there is no way I can ever become a member of Jealous's assembly =

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/racial%20tolerance/dt23_03a.html 5 pictures

Deuteronomy 23:2 (TLB) = "2 A bastard may not enter the sanctuary, nor any of his descendants for ten generations."

David Killens's picture
@AJ777

@AJ777

"If God is the source of all good, and a person rejects God choosing to be apart from Him. Then being apart from the source of all goodness would be torment. Evil is the lack or absence of good. Hell is evil because God and His effects are not able to be perceived by the occupants of it."

If your god is the source of all good, then your god is also the source of all evil. I get it, your god created everything. But since your god created everything, then this god is accountable for every evil that has every happened.

Sapporo's picture
You shall not murder, is the

You shall not murder, is the commandment. If the Christian worldview is true and human souls cannot die, then killing the body merely results in the souls changing location to either be with God or apart from God. If one does not want God now, it would be unloving of a God to force a creature with freewill such as yourself into his presence against their will. The fire is a metaphor for something far worse which we cannot imagine, the absence of all good.

The commandant can just as easily be interpreted as "You shall not kill."

Your post contains too many "If"s.

In my view, eternal torture IS the absence of all good, and the bible is clear that those who are sent to hell suffer. But this is a pointless debate, as the whole book is just dogma written by individuals who were vague, imprecise, and generally limited in detail.

I cannot be forced against my will into the presence of something I do not believe in.

Cognostic's picture
By my count, according to

By my count, according to your own Bible. the score is 24,994,828 murders to 8.
Satan's murder total is exactly 0.0000320066215298621% of Gods.

"You shall do as I say and not as I do, even though I made you to be just like me." Is the Commandment.
The Christian World View is Based on Bullshit!

Algebe's picture
@AJ777: Notice torment is

@AJ777: Notice torment is different than torture.

No. They're pretty much synonymous. "Torment" and "torture" are both transitive verbs signifying actions that can be inflicted on others.

Random and arbitrary definition of terms isn't a valid approach to debate.

AJ777's picture
Definition of torture (Entry

Definition of torture (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

torment noun
tor·​ment | \ˈtȯr-ˌment \
Definition of torment (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : extreme pain or anguish of body or mind : AGONY

From Merriam Webster

Algebe's picture
@AJ777: From Merriam Webster

@AJ777: From Merriam Webster

Let's not play dictionaries. The meanings of words are defined by usage, not by dictionary writers.

Look at some sentence examples and tell me how the words differ.

The heretics were tortured by the priests. (transitive verb)
The heretics were tormented by the priests. "

The priests of the Inquisition subjected heretics to the torments of hell. (Noun)
The priests of the Inquisition subjected heretics to the tortures of hell. "

There are no perfect synonyms in English, but these two are very close. "Torment" may be slightly more archaic in usage than "torture."

Sheldon's picture
"Sapporo, if you’re referring

"Sapporo, if you’re referring to the Christian concept of Hell the Christian view as I understand it is that the unbeliever is tormented forever and ever due to their own free will choice to be apart from God."

So I won't go there then? As I have made no such choice, one cannot choose to be apart from what does not exist, and as an atheist I don't believe any deity exists, there is no choice to make.

"Notice torment is different than torture. "

Nonsense, mendacious semantics, torture is the act, torment the result.

torment
noun
severe physical or mental suffering.

torture
noun
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain.

" Doesn’t the Christian Bible have a commandment forbidding murder?"

Doesn't it also have a commandment to stone unruly children to death? Doesn't it also condone slavery and rapine? Cherry picking morals from archaic bronze age tomes is the very opposite of objective.

AJ777's picture
Sapporo, in your view what is

Sapporo, in your view what is the difference between good and right, evil and wrong?

Sheldon's picture
What's wrong with addressing

What's wrong with addressing all the answers you have already had?

Sapporo's picture
AJ777: Sapporo, in your view

AJ777: Sapporo, in your view what is the difference between good and right, evil and wrong?

I think I've already answered that. What an individual considers right and wrong is arbitrary, but may be quantifiable (e.g. not killing people without their permission).

I don't believe in objective morality, because morality is a matter of taste. I see no reason why even an omniscient being could be said to have objective morality, because it would still be a matter of taste. Humans who say they follow "objective morality" act as though their senses are infallible and that any "objective" being they follow has a taste that is not arbitrary.

AJ777's picture
Omniscience is one aspect of

Omniscience is one aspect of God, but also in Christian theology He is the ultimate source of goodness, and cannot do evil or sin. If a god exists this would make sense because if that being was not the greatest possible being, it would not be God, another being would be superior to it and therefore that being would be God. So the taste of this greatest possible being would be prefect, true, correct, never changing, because if it did change it would no longer be the greatest possible. So, if the Christian God exists His commandments must be the moral standard.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Omniscience is one aspect of God, but also in Christian theology He is the ultimate source of goodness, and cannot do evil or sin. If a god exists this would make sense because if that being was not the greatest possible being, it would not be God, another being would be superior to it and therefore that being would be God. So the taste of this greatest possible being would be prefect, true, correct, never changing, because if it did change it would no longer be the greatest possible. So, if the Christian God exists His commandments must be the moral standard.

Piffle. I do not believe you.

AJ777's picture
Your state of mind has no

Your state of mind has no bearing on the existence or non existence of a necessary being.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Your state of mind has no bearing on the existence or non existence of a necessary being.

Risible language again from you. My "state of mind" is immaterial to my lack of belief in your statement or your claim.

You snuck in a claim at the end of your sentence; "necessary being"

Again. Piffle. I do not believe in your god/being at all, never mind it being 'necessary'

I explained in my first response where human morality comes from.
I explained in my first response why the Abrahamic religions cannot be held to be moral.

You have replied with apologetics and piffle.

AJ777's picture
What is piffle?

What is piffle?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

What is piffle?

piffle
/ˈpɪf(ə)l/Submit
noun INFORMAL
nonsense.
"it's absolute piffle to say that violence is ok"
synonyms: nonsense, rubbish, garbage, claptrap, balderdash, blather, blether, moonshine;

arakish's picture
AJ777: "What is piffle?"

AJ777: "What is piffle?"

Wow! Just wow. Please tell me you are at least intelligent enough to figure out what "piffle" means. Although Old Man already gave the definition, I knew exactly what "piffle" meant without ever having to look it up or ask what it meant. And I never heard/saw the term "piffle" until I saw Old Man use it here.

Of course, since you were unable to figure out what "piffle" means, that explains a lot how you were so easily brainwashed.

Micheal Sherlock: “Religion is not merely a tool to oppress the masses, it is a self perpetuating scam that leads the masses to oppress themselves.”

rmfr

LogicFTW's picture
Quite the un-evidenced claim

@ AJ777
Quite the un-evidenced claim there:

"necessary being"

You have zero evidence for that claim, it is like me saying: it is necessary for you to pay me 1 million dollars. No, it most certainly is not.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

AJ777's picture
Actually there is evidence,

Actually there is evidence, the question is what kind of evidence are you willing to accept?

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Nothing less than OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that I can take into a lab and put it through a 1001 tests.

rmfr

LogicFTW's picture
Actually there is evidence,

Actually there is evidence, the question is what kind of evidence are you willing to accept?

Anything that is actually evidenced. Ya know, real world, testable, repeatable, subject to scrutiny of all interested people to test and verify?

But I already know you got nothing. If you did, you be up for nobel prize (and any other similar prize) and probably be the most important person ever born anywhere at any time.

Remember: we have zero way of proving if there was a start to everything or not, we currently have no way of seeing before the big bang, as all tools of observation are based on the material/and reality the big bang created. We have no way of knowing if the universe is infinite or not, heck it is likely our minds could not fully comprehend eithir answer.

To state you have evidence of what happened before the big bang is like saying you have evidence of a teapot floating somewhere in the planet Saturn's rings. You don't and I would be a fool to think you did.

But sure, do a quick run down on your "evidence." I can tell you it is very likely I already heard it a dozen times before and already know that the evidence presented so many times before is not actually evidence.

Let me save you a little time:
"god is everywhere and the incredible complexity of life and the universe is proof of god as it could not happen just from chance and evolution."

Is an answer I seen many times and it is completely irrelevant useless argument, there is zero actual proof in that statement, and what is worse it is unfalsifiable, meaning I could make up 1000 different god ideas, say that they are all powerful but wish to remain mostly hidden and your same explanation would work for each one of the gods I just made up just in the last second.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Sapporo's picture
AJ777: Your state of mind has

AJ777: Your state of mind has no bearing on the existence or non existence of a necessary being.

The "Necessary being" is a meaningless concept. A being can only be necessary if it exists. And you cannot say that something is not necessary if it exists.

AJ777's picture
This has to do with a non

This has to do with a non-contingent and contingent beings. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Sapporo's picture
This has to do with a non

This has to do with a non-contingent and contingent beings. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

That is pure metaphysics, rather than a matter of fact.

AJ777's picture
That is a metaphysical

That is a metaphysical statement.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.