AJ777, problem of Evil and cosmological argument.

154 posts / 0 new
Last post
xenoview's picture
@empedocles

@empedocles
The verus says it all right there. It clearly states that god created evil. I don't think your god is responsible for all evil, humans do their fair shares of it.

Edit

Empedocles's picture
@xenoview

@xenoview

The Bible says that. The KJV says that. The KJV translates wild bulls into unicorns. It isn't accurate. Compare other translations. AMP, ISV, reads disaster, CEB reads doom, the CEV reads happiness and sorrow, The ESV, NWT, MEV, NASB, reads calamity.

arakish's picture
Empedocles: "Okay, well, what

Empedocles: "Okay, well, what does that mean exactly? That all evil in the world was caused by God?"

Yes. According to you Religious Absolutists, your sky faerie is responsible for the creation of EVERYTHING. Thus, your sky faerie is responsible for ALL EVIL.

rmfr

Empedocles's picture
@arakish

@arakish

What any "Religious Absolutists" or anyone else, including you and I think isn't relevant. What does the Bible say. AMP, ISV, reads disaster, CEB reads doom, the CEV reads happiness and sorrow, The ESV, NWT, MEV, NASB, reads calamity.

arakish's picture
@ Empedocles

@ Empedocles

All one needs to know from any version of the Bible is that your sky faerie(s) created absolutely EVERYTHING. Thus, your sky faerie(s) are the ones who are also PURE EVIL.

Show me one version of the Bible where it DOES NOT state that your sky faerie(s) DID NOT CREATE EVERYTHING including their own evil.

rmfr

Empedocles's picture
@arakish

@arakish

I just ignore shit like this, you know? I mean, I love being questioned and challenged but I don't want to sift through your lame ass references to sky faeries and bullshit. To question or challenge me isn't an opportunity for you to gnash your teeth and lick your wounds if you were a former Christian and if you're into science my advice is you spend more time doing that and get over my "sky faeries."

Move on.

arakish's picture
@ Empedocles

@ Empedocles

I just ignore shit like this, you know?

Because you cannot refute it.

I mean, I love being questioned and challenged but I don't want to sift through your lame ass references to sky faeries and bullshit.

The only thing lame is religion. Think Critically about it.

To question or challenge me isn't an opportunity for you to gnash your teeth and lick your wounds if you were a former Christian and if you're into science my advice is you spend more time doing that and get over my "sky faeries."

No gnashing. No licking. Never was a believer. EVER! Was born atheist. Have always been atheist. Shall die an atheist. And I am damned proud to admit it. And I do lots of science. I come here to get a break from it. Most often I work from home doing the boring analytical data crunching. To relieve the boredom, I come here.

And my term sky faeries is more accurate than other term any Religious Absolutist can come up with. Ever heard of Gore Vidal? He might be a bit before your time.

Monotheism: The Great Unmentionable Evil

“The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved — Judaism, Christianity, Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are literally, patriarchal — God is the Omnipotent Father — hence the loathing of women for 2000 years in those cultures afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, even naming himself Jealous, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is in place not for just one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him MUST be converted or killed for their own good. Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can truly serve the sky-god's purpose.”

This is where I got the term “sky faerie”. Since the concept of ANY deity is created by humans, then it serves better to call such creations by more magical names. Thus, “sky faerie” and “magic lich virgin” and “rather comical spook”.

Kind of like you redefining words.

Arakish: “Henotheism refers to a pluralistic theology wherein different deities are viewed to be of a unitary, equivalent divine essence.

From the Oxford English Etymological Dictionary (hard copy).

Empedocles: “Henotheism is the worship of a single god while not denying the existence or possible existence of other deities.

From the Great Wiki. And they got it wrong.

• From Greek ἑνός θεός (henos theos), meaning 'one god.'

⇒ ⇒ It is actually ένας θεός (énas theos) to mean "one god."

Proof of what I always say about not completely trusting the Great Wiki. The Great Wiki is a fairly good source for some information, but do not rely on their etymology. Rarely do they get it correct.

Thus, the terms “sky faerie” and “magic lich virgin” and “rather comical spook” are going to be plastered all over these forums and I am going to be the one doing it.

Arakish: “Only YOU have the power to give any word, phrase, sentence, and number the power to offend YOU!

And as Christopher Hitchens once said, and I paraphrase: “I don't give a damn if anything I say or write offends anybody. The problem is not mine. The problem is theirs.

rmfr

Randomhero1982's picture
The Big Bang needs a big

The Big Bang needs a big banger.

That's bollocks.

Evil is not explainable on atheism

Lo and behold, this too is bollocks.

Sheldon's picture
Randomhero1982

Randomhero1982

"The Big Bang needs a big banger.

>That's bollocks.

Evil is not explainable on atheism

>Lo and behold, this too is bollocks."
-----------------------------------------------------------

You have the gift of sight my son, go and be blessed.

Talyyn's picture
@AJ777,

@AJ777,

1) I don't need to hear your conclusion, i want you to explain the structure of the argument.

2) Where the Hell did i say that Evil where explainable by atheism? Is this a diversion tactic? Hooo, and your sentence is the bullshit theodicy of "Evil is absence of God".
You still don't want to talk about the story of the Fall it seems.

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

1.The Big Bang needs a big banger.
2. Evil is not explainable on atheism. On Christianity evil is the lack of good. God did not create evil, where He is not there is evil.

  1. How do you know? Please provide OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Something you have proven to never be capable of doing.
  2. Actually, where there is the Christian god, there is evil. Where there is no Christian god, there is peace.

Some GIS Research Into The GOOD Of Religion

“Current research evidence does not support the common view that religiosity is positively correlated with good morality,” said Sam Harris.

In fact, I used QGIS software, and the TIGER data from the Census Bureau and crime data files from the FBI to see how correct his statement is. It took me several months, but my research has shown that the more religious a population, the higher the crime rates, specifically violent crime. While the same research shows that the more educated (thus less religious) a population, the lower the crime rates. If religion is so damned good for us, then why does it seem to spawn so much more violent crime?

Although listed as green and red, I am forced to use strong and emphasis for the highlights as indicated. I use red and green to indicate danger and safety.

Here are some research numbers:

  • Green = Highly educated; persons with at least a Master’s degree or higher, or multiple (2+) Baccalaureate or higher degrees.
  • Red = Highly religious; persons with low education (no high school diploma), Associate’s degree or lower, or no degrees.

This is only in the United States, perhaps the most religious nation on Earth (excepting some Muslim nations).

  • Of the 25 states with the lowest rates of crime, 5 are red, 20 are green (a 1:4 ratio).
  • Of the 25 states with the highest rates of crime, 19 are red, 6 are green (a 3:1 ratio).
  • Of the 25 most dangerous cities, 22 are red, 3 are green (a 7:1 ratio).
  • Of the 20 most safest cities, only 2 are red, 18 are green (a 1:9 ratio).
  • Of the 19 states with the highest rates of burglary, 16 are red, 3 are green (a 5:1 ratio).
  • Of the 22 states with the highest rates of theft, 18 are red, 4 are green (a 4:1 ratio).
  • Of the 22 states with the highest rates of murder, 19 are red, 3 are green (a 6:1 ratio).

Notes on how I chose these listings. With the cities/states I chose enough from the list to get at least “3” of whichever color. The only exceptions are the 20 most safest cities due to the fact that to get a third “red” city, I would have had to take the top 38 most safest cities making it 3 are red, 35 are green giving a ratio of 1:12. I figured a 1:9 ratio was bad enough. And to really add insult to injury, to get the fourth “red” safest city, it would been 52 cities making it 4 are red, 48 are green, still a 1:12 ratio. And you call us atheists dangerous and immoral, and to be trusted less than rapists and murderers.

And to add more insult to injury, the first red “most safest” city does not appear until number 16. And to pour salt in the wound, in the “most dangerous” cities, the three green ones are numbers 19, 22, and 25. So much for atheism being so dangerous.

On the highest theft, I could have stopped at 21 cities making 18 are red, 3 are green. Since adding the 22nd city would lower the ratio (from 6:1 to 4:1) I decided to be a nice guy and cut you Religious Absolutists some slack. I also made it match the number of highest murder states.

I made the choices above just so I would not have to listen to your whiney-ass pleas about being a vindictive atheist. See, us atheists are actually good people.

Reiteration: If religion is so damned good for us, then why does it seem to spawn so much more violent crime?

These I could NOT cut any slack for you Religious Absolutists. More shocking numbers on the goodness of religion (researched as an afterthought):

  • 93% of convicted child molesters identify themselves as Christian (a 13:1 ratio).
  • 84% of all inmates identify themselves as religious believers (a 5:1 ratio).
  • 0.02% of inmates identify themselves as Atheist, meaning only 1 in 5000 are Atheist.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
AJ777

AJ777

1.The Big Bang needs a big banger.
2. Evil is not explainable on atheism. On Christianity evil is the lack of good. God did not create evil, where He is not there is evil.
--------------------------------------
1. No it doesn't - Hitchens's razor, and there was no bang, please do research scientific facta before you espouse them as supporting your superstitious myths.
2. Evil is not explicable by Atheism because it is just the lack or absence of one single belief. However evil is a human concept based on our evolved ability to reason, nothing about the concept requires a deity of any kind or anything supernatural.

You have also evaded the point yet again in the mistaken belief we won't notice you attacking atheism is pure obfuscation.

AJ777 " On Christianity evil is the lack of good. "

Not even close to be true, is a rock good? Does that mean rocks are evil. Christ will you learn to read a dictionary.

Evil
adjective
1.profoundly immoral and wicked.

AJ777 "God did not create evil, where He is not there is evil."

Two more unevidenced claims, and they both miss the point spectacularly. So I'll repeat the argument from evil again and see if you can see why your claim is irrelevant.

The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God (see theism). An argument from evil claims that because evil exists, either God does not exist or does not have all three of those properties.

Why do you think it is immoral to torture children?

Talyyn's picture
@Sheldon,

@Sheldon,

Thanks Shedlon, AJ777 and Empedocles have not actually answered my OP, instead discussing endlessly about definitions and translations.

Sheldon's picture
It's evasion and obfuscation

It's evasion and obfuscation with them all the time. AJ777 is shameless. It's clear he's here to preach as well, and has no real interest in debate. I do love it when people think they have solved the problem of theodicy though, they ought at least to phone the Vatican and let them know.

Rickdiculous's picture
1. Why doesn't this big

1. Why doesn't this big banger need another banger to bang him/her into existence?

Sheldon's picture
Rickdiculous

Rickdiculous
"Why doesn't this big banger need another banger to bang him/her into existence?"

If the apologetics is true to form, it'll be waved away with a special pleading fallacy. You know like everything needs a cause, except god, complexity needs a designer but a more complex designer doesn't, and on and on...same old nonsense.

Empedocles's picture
@Rickdiculous

@Rickdiculous

Ultimately you are going to get to the end of bangers who had to have existed without a predecessor.

arakish's picture
@ Empedocles

@ Empedocles

Wrong. Ever heard of infinite regression? I can go on forever about a banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger needing another banger…

However, I won't because the server here probably cannot handle an infinite regress.

rmfr

Talyyn's picture
@Empedocles

@Empedocles

Your rapid dismissal of infinite regression.... One of my first thread her was exactly on this subject, the thing is we DO NOT KNOW if infinite regress is possible or not.

AJ777's picture
Hell which was created for

Hell which was created for the devil and his angels is where God is not able to be enjoyed. God is all powerful necessarliy. He did not create evil because evil is nothing. If good is the donut, evil is the donut hole where there is no donut.

Empedocles's picture
@AJ777

@AJ777

The wages of sin equals death, so what justice is there in being punished beyond that? For he who has died has been acquitted from his sin. Romans 6:7

Sheldon's picture
Beyond citing behaviours that

Beyond citing behaviours that don't adhere to traditional religious doctrine, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for what you call "sin"?

It's always struck me as an absurd and slightly odious idea, that a baby born perfect somehow carries a supernatural curse. A curse that requires the vicarious suffering and blood atonement murder of another human being.

I'm glad it's an absurd myth of course, as If it were true it would be a repulsively immoral idea.

Diotrephes's picture
AJ777,

AJ777,

"God is all powerful necessarliy. He did not create evil because evil is nothing."

"Will you speak lies for God? Do you really believe your lies are what God wants you to say?" ~ Job 13:7 (ERV)

As it says in Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) = "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Judges 1:19 (TLB) = "The Lord helped the tribe of Judah exterminate the people of the hill country, though they failed in their attempt to conquer the people of the valley, who had iron chariots."

Empedocles's picture
@Diotrephes

@Diotrephes

Judges 1:19 (TLB) = "The Lord helped the tribe of Judah exterminate the people of the hill country, though they failed in their attempt to conquer the people of the valley, who had iron chariots."

A Response To The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB) - Can God Stop Iron Chariots?

When considering the alleged contradiction of God being able to do everything or not, in this case specifically to defend Israel against iron chariots, it is important to be aware of the stipulations that Jehovah God gave Israel for his doing so. At Deuteronomy 20:1 he gave them instruction to have faith in him even when coming up against foes that seemed greater than Israel itself.

If they were disobedient (Deuteronomy 28:15, 25 / Joshua 7:1-12) or lacking faith (Judges 1:19) Jehovah wasn't there for them.

So when the SAB determines that God can stop iron chariots as at Judges 4:13-16 they would be wise to consider the verses contextually with a few verses before; Judges 4:1-4 where Israel's disobedience prevented him from defending them.

Diotrephes's picture
Empedocles,

Empedocles,

"When considering the alleged contradiction of God being able to do everything or not, in this case specifically to defend Israel against iron chariots, it is important to be aware of the stipulations that Jehovah God gave Israel for his doing so. At Deuteronomy 20:1 he gave them instruction to have faith in him even when coming up against foes that seemed greater than Israel itself."

In actual history the story about the iron chariots is about the war between the Hittites and the Egyptians. The Hittites had the monopoly on iron manufacturing and they used that technology to make heavy chariots which could carry a three man crew. So they were able to out-gun the Egyptians who only had two man chariots.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hittite+chariots&client=firefox-b-1-ab&t...

https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2014/10/hittite-innovation-chari...

The interesting thing about the biblical story is that in this particular instance the God character is the Egyptian Pharaoh who is leading the Israelites.

Sheldon's picture
@Empedocles

@Empedocles

A lot of assertions and assumptions in that post, are we likely to see any objective evidence demonstrated for any of it? Start with the assumption a deity exists...

Talyyn's picture
@AJ777

@AJ777

Wooh! Evil is nothing? Does that mean, that you, as a theist, think Evil is not an objective fact?

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Care to change that view?

rmfr

Talyyn's picture
@arakish

@arakish

OUT OF CONTEEEEEEEEXXXXXXXXXTTTTTEEEEEEE!!!!!

Ahem... Sorry, 117 replies and still not an honest and well-made answer from him.

arakish's picture
@ Talyyn

@ Talyyn

But... ***pouty mouth*** But... It says right there. ***lower lip starts trembling*** But Christians always pull verses out of context. ***tears welling in eyes***

WWHHHAAAA! ***stamping feet*** But I am right... WWHHHAAAA! ***stamping feet, falls to ground and flails appendages as the tantrum starts***

rmfr

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.