Arguement from EVIL

This is the most ridiculous post I've seen from you Jenyar, I'm shocked.

You have to either admit there is a God or there isn't - could be is not good enough -

\Utter bullshit. As a reasonable human you should frickin know better and I'm quite sure you do. Jenyar, some questions have not answer. You say "admit" as if there were some sort of reasonable compelling evidence one way or the other. The entire argument is that there is no evidence one way or the other, so it is silly to profess you have some sort of inside scoop.

since it means you want God to come down to you and "prove himself", and that you don't believe He might already have done that.

\*sigh* that is just sad. what? okay, because someone doesn't believe a WORK OF FICTIONISH/HALFASSED HISTORICAL ACCOUNT, one of severa different ones mind you.. you say all THAT. That's simply ridiculous. You are placing your own distorted perspective on the scenario and expecting reality to conform.. as does almost every freakin theist I've heard from.

God would not let people have to believe in Him based on myths, or even truths - He gives us knowledge, experience and wisdom, so that we can talk about Him.

\You spew dogma from your ridiculous assumptions that other people haven't made, and expect that you are communicating some kind of higher truth. I'm somewhat shocked that you'd follow this line of argument, seeing as how you're one of the few theists I actually respect.

How exactly do the descriptions of God vary, any more than the descriptions of any one person would vary?

\Did you read what I said to Jan? I think I covered it perfectly.

If a religion says you are going to hell if you don't belong to them, stay away. If a religion says God will know if you don't belong to Him, well... it's up to God then isn't it? No person or group can send you to hell - nobody has that authority.

\Now ou're being reasonable again. It's refreshing. You were freaking me out.

I think God stays rationally "elusive" to you because you refuse to anything that has any bearing on Him. If an angel came down to you and told you God exists, you would believe in angels but still doubt God's existence.

\It's a question of the nature of knowledge don't you think? I personally would take a shitload of convincing, but I'd prolly eventually come over. It's a matter of plausibility if you have half a brain in my opinion. God and angels are ridiculous sounding to me and seem bourne of the human need to have answers to fundamental questions regarding existence. Further, I'm aware that any race/whatever could easily fool me with sufficiently advanced technology. Given that, isn't it WISE to be a tough sell? No, I see.. just blindly believing a bunch of folk tales about invisible deities is better, right. Pardon. :rolleyes:

Do you really expect God to personally come down and convince everyone on earth that they have no choice but to believe in Him? If you weren't given a choice, would believe? Would you even want to, since who wants to serve a God who gives you no choice?

\I want the truth, I don't care what it is, but if you have crazy sounding claims, it'll take more evidence to convince me. Are you too abandoning reason for the cult mentality Jenyar?

If I understand things at all, this is exactly the kind of split which will happen when Jesus returns.

\Go ahead and hold your breath for that one there buddy. Hehe, you know what will happen, somebody will figure out how to say something like "I've proven this is the DNA of Jesus" and most of the sci community will be all "whatever" but some of the hardcore jesus head in that community will be all "yeah, it's true!" which will bring most of the christians around to their perspective (and of course they'll try to say "see, your own scientists say so" even though credible scientists don't). Then a year or few someone will clone from that DNA and say "Christ has returned" and all the christians will freak, but they'll be all "isn't something supposed to happen now?" and nothing will. Maybe if it's thought through beforehand people will realize it would only really harm christianity, not help. For now, just keep holding your breath.. and please, get the rest of your cult to do so as well.

OK, this is theology, so I don't expect you to relate at all.

\I will NEVER relate to it because I am not a cultist. I can face the truth, which NO RELIGION CAN TELL YOU. There is no answer to the question "is there a god?". Face it.

Some people will feel compelled to oppose him (based on their knowledge or lack of knowledge of "God"), and others will follow him naturally.

\Oppose him? What? Man, Okay, you're having a bad morning, I have those sometimes... but hey.. that's ridiculous. You mean, some people are sheep and some people can think for themselves and don't buy into cult mentalities in general, I'll buy that.. but don't come off all self-righteous that your bullshit assumptions are somehow more valid than someone who throws up their arms and says "I got nuthin.". Honestly, the person who does that has something.. something that I value almost more than anything: A REASONABLE MIND.

Have a super day! :D
 
Originally posted by MShark
Wes:

If you agree with my definition of evil then I would submit that there is no relation between premises one and two(Just because from my perspective somthing is evil does not mean it is evil from someone elses perspective, i.e. God's ). Thus the conclusion while not necessarily wrong is not logical.

premise 1. An all good, all knowing, and all powerful God exists
2. There exists evil in the world

The existence of evil in the world does not logically exclude the existance of God, but such evil makes it extremely improbably that God exists. Statement (2) should be thought of as strong evidence against statement (1)
Click to expand...

It can be in a selective argument, yes. However, as Jan and others have pointed out (and not given the argument ANY credit by the way... which is just straight denial) you can wiggle your definition of god in a manner that precludes the validity of this stance.
 
Why can you religious people not admit that your beliefs are not logical? Your beliefs are unreasonble. They are understandable and forgivable and the exemplify the frailty of the human experience, but... YOUR BELIEFS ARE NOT BASED IN REASON.

Mine are.

Then you try to convince me that you make sense.

You don't.

You don't HAVE to, but you should be honest with us and yourself that you don't make sense.

You are satiating an element of emotional need within your mind and will bullshit yourself to do it. Hence your problem.

And then you claim that god is truth.

Your circular dishonesty disgusts me.
 
Wes:
Are you saying that your beliefs are based on reason?

That seems a little circular to me.
 
Originally posted by MShark
Wes:
Are you saying that your beliefs are based on reason?

That seems a little circular to me.
Click to expand...

Indeed, now you're onto something.

It's a matter of where you place your faith.

Some people obviously place their faith in god....

but the people here are saying their faith is reasonable. I say no, your faith is circular like all faith. Meaning your belief in god is unreasonable.

My faith is in reason, which of course IMO... is by definition... perfectly reasonable. :)
 
natural "evil"- argue if you must on the meaning of evil its just a word to decribe this type of suffering.

What constitutes natural evil- The suffering caused by such natural disasters as earthquakes,floods,droughts,hurricanes, and the like, which are not the causal result of any moral agent in the world.

They are natural evils, evils for which no human being is responsible.

How do you respond to suffering that is not caused by humans?
 
Last edited:
The white rabbit told me to eat the blue and white mushrooms but I ate the pink ones and now I am totaly lost, and not very big either.
 
The white rabbit was ment for Wes:

Suffering is neither good nor bad IMHO. The worst suffering I have ever personally witnessed resulted in a beatuiful baby girl who has given me and her mother immense joy. Of course that was caused by humans.

For those people who have suffered beyond what they can endure I can not speak for or about. It is beyond my understanding.

For the rest of us suffering and death are a part of life I do not understand how they can be clasified as evil.
 
MooseKnuckle,

What about natural evil?

The immense suffering resulting from natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, droughts, hurricanes, and the like, which are not the causal result of any moral agent in the world.
Click to expand...
Tgis is not evil. This is the system regulating itself. When the system goes off-balance, those things occur to return it into balance.
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena

Remember, this man boasts that he is a gifted brainy guy, and operates on a level of logic and reason, so I expect he must have shed-loads of proof to back up his statement.
[/B]
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it's obvious. Oh, and I don't own a searchable bible, so I'm not looking it up. I would say however.. since I'm so gifted and brainy, that it is OBVIOUS, since if you don't love jesus, you go to hell right? Oh.. no, sorry. I meant if you don't love Muhammed you're going to hell. Was it Ganesha? Shit, I can't remember. :rolleyes:

Isn't it valid to assert that if I don't subscribe to the tenets of your scripture, I do not live by your scripture... and thusly am doomed by it right? I don't give a shit the bible, so I'm going to hell from your perspective. Simple.

EDIT: Oh, and also note that I never claimed PROOF. I have no PROOF (though I'm thinking it might be in there somewhere, seems like I should be able to condense all my ramblings into one small proof, I'm almost sure of it. I think I can do it, but haven't "prooved" anything yet). All I claim to offer is a buttload of creative, sensible, logical and reasonable thinking with comedic and sardonic undertones. I'm quite sure that I've served up my fair share eh?
 
Last edited:
Jan Ardena

I used perfect in the sense of... God is described in all scriptures and this is perfectly known, do you see?

\No, you're mincing words in a vain attempt to support your invalid assumptions.

Hopefully you will see that this is irrelevant in light of my meaning.

\No, you're ignoring my meaning and clinging to something you've made up. You completely ignored my point regarding the "one god" concept because you can't see that it's correct. I will not be blinded due to YOUR poor eyesight.

You have to understand that this is your opinion, I know me, and you are attempting to describe my mindset, to me, based on our discussion.

\Indeed I am. Consider it an intervention, whereby I show you you're behaving like an idiot. Just because it is my opinion, that doesn't mean it isn't true. You ARE in the grips of a cult mindset, but you in the cult so it doesn't look that way to you. I, NOT being in your cult, can easily see it.

A simple misunderstanding, right? ;)

\Whatever.

He is described in all scriptures, if you do not agree, there is nothing I can do or say.

\I say you are wrong and that it's assenine for you to assert this, considering you've already admitted you haven't read "all scriptures". Further, your assertion is completely invalid based upon what I've already told you about "god" being a different "god" to all religions. Your attempts at saying "oh, well, they're all just variations on the same thing" in essence, is a half-truth. It is true in the sense that they are all halfassed attempts to anwer questions that human beings are not as of yet, qualified to answer.. but not true in the sense that "they all speak of the same god". That is stupid, and I've already given you a parallel assertion that illustrates my point. You chose to ignore it.

My so-called assumption, was, again, for the record, a misunderstanding.

\You are NOT referring the the assumption I was referring to. I was referring to your assumption "my conception of god is pertinent". I would further say that your assumption "my holy scripture has some bearing on the origins of everything" or however you would word it, is also invalid.

This is an unreasonable statement, because everything I have said can be backed up.

\Then when are you going to back up even one point. Choose one and back it up and I'll apoligize. Otherwise, my statement stands as perfectly valid. Mind you, I'll attempt to refute your "backing it up" thing.. but I will admit it and apoligize if your evidence is irrifutable.

You, on the other hand have only made wild, disrespectful assumptions, based on negative emotion.

\You see my emotion as negative because you cannot relate and thus become xenophobic. You don't understand where I'm coming from and assume it's negative. You're wrong. Further, I've made no assumptions other than the following: I have faith in reason. I assume reason and logic are the tools by which arguments are disputed and sorted out into bullshit and not bullshit. You obviously do not subscribe to this assumption. Apparently dogma and religious brainwashing is all you know, and therefore all you have. It's sad. YOU cling to your religion for the "warm fuzzy" it gives you. I don't have a problem with that, I only have a problem with you attempting to use my precious logic and reason to assert that your position is valid. FIRST, you should have more respect for logic and reason and secondly.. employing the first leads one to the perspective that your position is NOT VALID... which is again, fine as long as you can admit it.

You are in the grips of a cult mind set.

Why do you assume this?

\Hehe, I've made and properly supported my case. You are simply unwilling to listen.

It has an undetermined amount of historical value based on a anthropological interpretation and analysis of motives behind the authors.

What do you want me to say to this, it is not a question, you are not arguing, you are telling me, so it is your opinion, and I for one wish you the best matey.

\I suppose it can be "just an opinion" but did you really look at it? Do you understand what it means? I don't think you do. It makes perfect sense. I was telling you that as part of a larger point. Actually, the more I think about.. I don't really think it's opinion. Look at it. It's truth. Don't be afraid. It's the method by which one might reasonably assess the validity of the bible. I had one of the best professors for history 20. I learned SO much in that class. It was just american history.. but it taught me the value of the anthropological approach in general. You cannot discern what really happened throughout history unless you can put yourself in the context that existed a the time and analyze the historical data based within that context. It's powerful stuff. Oh, but I guess that's just "my opinion". :rolleyes:

Well, I have thought about it, can’t you tell.

\No. I can't. If you have, I haven't seen evidence that you've done a particularly thorough or reasonable job of it.

But I do prefer when it moves me, because then, I know its real.

\There is your fundamental error. I can fill your cup full of mescaline, watch you drink it and laugh at the result.. do you think what you would experience under its influence would 'move you'? Would that make it truth. You may have thought about it a LOT, but you apparently aren't that great at thinking. You should work on that.

Maybe that is what you need, your views are dull, predictable and uniformed,

\I'll forgive you for slandering me. I understand that it is not easy when someone attacks the core of your beliefs. You should however, take it back. I am very well informed, very bright and my perspective is anything but dull. I would expect you would say such things though, as your "thinking skills" are lacking resources for a more sophisticated response.

I can predict 9 times out of 10 how you are going to respond.

\You're know you're just making that up. How insulting.

because that is how you are trained.

\At least I take responsibility for my own perspective. You use some poor ancient book as the scapegoat for your pathetic ignorance.

It is sad, but it is fact, just read your own posts and see how miserable you are.

\Uh.. *whistles a tune*. Okay... but I've already read it. I thought it was pretty good. You don't like it eh? *shrug* I have to be honest and true to reason. Sorry if you can't relate.

Yeah baby, I liked to be moved.

Of course you do, I don’t believe you can think any other way, because of the way your mind has been trained.

\Lucky for me. I can't live in a world of circular reasoning. I have far too much self-respect.

Love

\Do you know what that even means? Your post seemed awful hateful to end it with "love". You're just a machine going through the motions aren't you? That's pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Truthseeker-

Tgis is not evil. This is the system regulating itself. When the system goes off-balance, those things occur to return it into balance.

So if there is too much happiness and good, God will have to regulate by causing suffering? Man thats pretty harsh.
 
Moose:
You have to realize about TruthSeeker's God is that he is a being that IS LOVE! Everything he does is for our own good. Then he'll say that those people that were killed were probably of the 'other seed'.

In short, there are some obvious problems with his worldview.
 
MooseKnuckle,

So if there is too much happiness and good, God will have to regulate by causing suffering? Man thats pretty harsh.
Click to expand...
No! It has nothing to do with people. The regulation is in the natural system. For example, if the air is too dry, it rains. Not a very good example, but whatever... The nature has to be in nalance. Natural disasters have absolutly nothing to do with people, it has to do with nature, with the eco-system.
 
TruthSeeker-

Oh I agree in a sense that natural disasters have nothing to do with people......except that they do affect people greatly.

I guess im a little confused...... I thought God created the earth, so wouldnt he be responsible for the suffering caused by natural disasters? If not, then who is responsible for nature? Satan?
 
MooseKnuckle,

God made up the system so that it regulates itself naturally. The system is independent from God. It just maintains itself and regulates itself. For example, God doesn't control an eagle when it eats a snake. The eagle do that naturally, by itself. It has a life of itself. Nature is like that. It is just a system that is there and sustains itself naturally.
 
TruthSeeker-

What about humans? Are we too independant of God? In that we sustain ourselves without his intervention, as is the case with nature. So far it sounds like your implying that God is not responsible for the type of system that we encounter(nature), that somehow its affects are independant of him.

God made up the system so that it regulates itself naturally

Part of its regulation is to destroy, to cause human suffering. This would have to be of his consideration when making such a grand design. One of such power should know the capabilities of its creations, and one such capability is for much human suffering as a result.
 
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
MooseKnuckle,

God made up the system so that it regulates itself naturally. The system is independent from God. It just maintains itself and regulates itself. For example, God doesn't control an eagle when it eats a snake. The eagle do that naturally, by itself. It has a life of itself. Nature is like that. It is just a system that is there and sustains itself naturally.
Click to expand...

I'm never seen anyone say less in more words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top