Here is something that was in my school newspaper, The Daily Toreador, and some of the comments made by some Christians. I found it rather interesting, and I apologize in advance for the length. It's rather confusing how they have an excuse for everything it seems. What are ya'lls thoughts?
It really bothers me when people blame God for the bad things that happen in the world and say he doesn't care about us or he doesn't know how to deal with us.
First, let me establish that God is real and that he knows what he is doing. The first and best sources are the scriptures and the words of the prophets. They teach that God does live, that he cares about us and that he has a plan for all of us.
Unfortunately, some people think that the Bible is "out-of-date" and not applicable to today's problems. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe if people applied the teachings found in the Bible, there would be far fewer problems in our society.
For those who want more than the Bible as proof God exists, just look at the beauty that surrounds all of us. For example, spend a clear evening outside town and watch the sunset. Wait until the sky is fully dark, and look up at the night sky.
I reserve the right to laugh and snicker if you think someone else can do a better job than the Master Painter.
Or you can take a road trip across the country. Just look at how the scenery changes, how trees appear before your eyes and give way to mountains that then become prairies. The human eye, which takes in everything around it, is more perfect than any camera ever invented.
Even Charles Darwin said, "that the eye ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest sense."
I don't understand how someone can look at nature and not see a divine hand involved. The doubter requires too much when he asks for a sign beyond the miracles of creation.
The passage of time, even long intervals of time, is not a "cause" and provides no answers without an intelligent designer. God knew what he was doing when he put this earth together and placed us on it.
This brings me to my second point. If God made the world, he made all the good and evil in it too, right? No. There is a simple concept which should be understood: Everything good comes from God and everything evil comes from the devil Yes, if God is real, so is the devil, and it is the devil who is responsible for tempting men to rape and blow up buildings and all other evils that make the evening news.
So if God is good, then why does he allow such bad things to happen? The answer is simply this: One of God's greatest gifts to us is our free agency. We are free to do as we please, even if our choices hurt others. This life is a test, and God will not intervene or remove the tests until the close of the examination.
Some people think the World Trade Center's twin towers would still be standing if it weren't for religion. I say they never would have been built if it weren't for religion.
During the years, countless atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, but this is neither because of God nor his influence - it is because of the lack of God in our lives. We continue to remove him from our society, and then we wonder why we have so many problems.
It is naive to think it is God who made "a very cruel world" and "good" people can have more morals than God. In the Bible, Joshua urged his people to "choose you this day whom ye will serve." To the extent we all choose wisely in this regard, the world will be a much better place.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
The Christian response was this:
He is able, but not willing. That doesn't make Him malevolent. This argument completely ignores the fact that without the potential for evil, love would hold absolutely no value. Because God is benevolent enough to grant us real, valuable love, He is willing to pay the price of having people reject Him and harm His own people.
Is it better to have a monarchy or democracy? If you say democracy, because you value people being able to decide things for themselves, then you support what God has done by giving us free will. If a monarch gives up his supreme power to allow each individual to make their own decisions, there is always the risk that those decisions will be bad. But, are we going to say that because some will make bad decisions, nobody should be allowed to decide anything? I'm gonna go ahead and stick with God's choice and say it's better to have freedom, in spite of the dangers.
I'll try to be more clear, then. If a person takes a gun and shoots another person, killing him, what is the source of the evil intention, the gun or the person wielding it? Any logical person would say the person is the one with intention, because that same gun lying on a table without the person would not have killed anyone. Now, if another person takes food from a store and gives it to a starving, impoverished person, which has good intention, the food or the person delivering it? Again, a logical person would say the person has the intention.
I'll use these two examples to illustrate my point. The food and the gun, without people, are not 'good' or 'evil' things. It takes people with 'good' and 'evil' intentions to talk about good and evil. So, if God did not allow us to have evil intentions, if we didn't have free will, then the fact that we are used for 'good' or to please Him wouldn't be special at all. Though we are used for good, we cannot 'be' good.
Most people would agree that stationary food, that isn't consumed, is no special thing. But, most people would also agree that the act of a person giving food to someone who needs it is a very good and lovable thing, something to appreciate. The problem is, we would not be able to appreciate it, or see anything special in it, if that same person didn't have the ability to commit evil, as well. It is the very fact that the person chose to do good, rather than evil, when he had the potential to do evil, that makes the act so special.
So, if we didn't have free will, real love could not exist. If we didn't have the potential to do evil, what we do would not be special or appreciated. Therefore, God had a choice, to give us free will and the ability of evil in order for real love to exist, or to have no evil and no love. God chose to let real love exist, in spite of evil, because of how valuable and beautiful it is.
I'm not a masochist, because I hate the manifestation of evil. But, I adore God's choice to allow the potential for evil, because it is the only way real love can exist. So, in effect, I am the opposite of a masochist, for loving the incidents of everything that is not harmful or hurtful. And, I realize that none of it would hold any value, would be worth loving, if not for the potential for evil. Does that help?
A person responded with the brutal examples of the atrocities listed in the Old Testament and how this "god" could love and permit those actions and the Christian response was as follows:
In Matthew 19, Jesus states that part of the Law of Moses was not in line with God's Law. In Hebrews 8, the fact that the Law of Moses had errors is attributed to men, and shows that the only reason we even have a New Testament was for the very problems you, George, complain about. Your arguments speak more about a form of Judaism than Christianity.
If you want to argue against Christianity, you'll have to show how the rejection of those atrocities is a bad thing, because that is much of what Christianity and the New Covenant are about. If you continue to complain about Old Testament perversions of God's Law, you're being more Christian than you think.
Again, What are ya'lls thoughts?
22 comments:
You do not need responses. The Xtian explanations are polemics and bullshit that avoid answering the real question.
The Xtian explanations assume a God and argue from that point. Throw away the assumption and understand the weakness of the argument.
Charles Darwin may not have understood the eye, but countless subsequent researchers have considered the matter, and have figured out where the eye came from, and why it is actually flawed.
The claim that beauty around us proves God exists is pretty much bullshit. We find beauty in things we are programmed, as a result of evolution, to enjoy.
Beaster argues that God created good and evil, and then tries to blame evil on the devil. Beaster cannot avoid the conclusion that God created evil. I see no explanation as to why an omnipotent and omniscient being would do such a thing. Beaster's delusions notwithstanding.
Beaster claims "countless atrocities have been committed in the name of religion," and tries to excuse it as a lack of God in our lives. Geez, the inquisitions were all about the presumed existence of God. What a fool this Beaster is.
Much of the rest of Bester's rant concern the existance of evil, as the only possible way of exhibiting love, like it was an either/or situation. This is mostly about as stupid as the rest of what Beaster has to say.
"In Matthew 19, Jesus states that part of the Law of Moses was not in line with God's Law. In Hebrews 8, the fact that the Law of Moses had errors is attributed to men, and shows that the only reason we even have a New Testament was for the very problems you, George, complain about."
This contradicts or at least calls into question "the best sources" that he used:"The first and best sources are the scriptures and the words of the prophets."
It's answering a contradiction with another cotradiction.
To paraphrase:
Christian:"The best place to learn about god and what he's like read the bible."
Skeptic:"I did that and your god looks like a jerk."
Christian:"Well those peices are wrong, look in these places THAT I HAVE POINTED OUT TO YOU for what god is really like.
In other words, your not to read the bible with your own understanding to find evidence of god, your supposed to use the understanding of those that already believe in the biblegod. So he just explained that the bible is the best place to learn about god, then set himself up as the best way to understand god.
More later.
One thing I don't quite understand yet, is how the evangelical [and more than likely other groups as well] christians take passages such as the one stating that there is no private interpretation of the bible, and then when you ask them where their particular denomination derived its dogma they all claim that it is derived from the bible itself - AND YET THERE ARE SOOOO MANY DIFFERENT DOGMAS, sounds like private interpretation got in there somehow...this then begs the question, which dogma is the right dogma? And of course every church claims that their brand is best, why else would there be so many differing denominations? This type of dissention is probably atheism's greatest weapon, mainly because they don't have to do anything to bring about the demise of the church, all they gotta do is sit back and let the pieces fall where they may..."A house divided against itself can not stand" -who said that again?...oh yeah JESUS.
This type of dissention is probably atheism's greatest weapon,
Their cognative dissonance gets them around this though. They pull the "True Christian", "fruits of the Spirit" or "false prophet" arguments out to get around it.
Basically, it's a complete waste of time to try to argue with anyone who "knows truth" from their heart, claim they have an indwelling, divine spirit, and believe that faith is a virtue.
"For those who want more than the Bible as proof God exists, just look at the beauty that surrounds all of us."
In other words, ignore all the bad ugly things that call into question a loving god. Ignore disease, maggots, and the threat of asteroid impact. Ignore everything that causes pain and the coldness of empty space. Ignore the reality around us and you too may come to the conclusion that there is a god watching out for us.
Also, if beauty does imply a creator, then what makes that creator the biblegod? He's jumping over some major hurdles with this bit of subjectivness.
"I believe if people applied the teachings found in the Bible, there would be far fewer problems in our society."
That's a lie. It's only the "teachings" in the bible that everyone agrees with that would make for a better society. The teachings like kindness to strangers and love thy neighbor stuff. But when the bible teaches to stone rebellious children and kill witches, subjugate women and such, it sets a stage for far more problems than exist now. And that is what makes it out of date.
"I reserve the right to laugh and snicker if you think someone else can do a better job than the Master Painter."
This is his opinion. Not even a very good one at that. Any thinking person can contrive a better existence than what this biblegod has supposedly given us. Just because he lacks the imagination or intelligence to think of ways things could be better doesn't mean the rest of humanity should be laughed at for doing just that.
"The doubter requires too much when he asks for a sign beyond the miracles of creation."
A "miracle" is defined not by the mundane natural course of events but by the extraordinary suspension of natural laws. When you redefine the ordinary as miraculous, then you make the miraculous meaningless. And asking for extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim is not asking for too much. It's only asking for just enough.
" Everything good comes from God and everything evil comes from the devil Yes, if God is real, so is the devil, and it is the devil who is responsible for tempting men..."
And he just glossed over the part about god supposedly creating the devil in the first place, and that god supposedly gives the devil permission to do the evil that he supposedly does, and it was god who supposedly set us humans up to be tempted in the first place.
"One of God's greatest gifts to us is our free agency."
This idea is contrary to the scriptural idea of predestination, which describes a god that "hardens peoples hearts" against him.
"Some people think the World Trade Center's twin towers would still be standing if it weren't for religion. I say they never would have been built if it weren't for religion."
Non sequitur.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?...
The Christian response was this:
He is able, but not willing. That doesn't make Him malevolent. This argument completely ignores the fact that without the potential for evil, love would hold absolutely no value."
So if this christian believes that he will be in heaven where his god reigns supreme and all potential for evil is gone...then his love for his god will be made meaningless.
"But, are we going to say that because some will make bad decisions, nobody should be allowed to decide anything?"
False dichotomy. If god was all good he could have given us the freewill to choose between to equally good things and kept evil out of it altogether.
"In Matthew 19, Jesus states that part of the Law of Moses was not in line with God's Law."
Showing us that the bible was written by man and not a god.
"In Hebrews 8, the fact that the Law of Moses had errors is attributed to men, and shows that the only reason we even have a New Testament was for the very problems you, George, complain about."
Which ignores the problems in the new testament like hating your family and other bad advice supposedly given by jesus.
"Your arguments speak more about a form of Judaism than Christianity."
Actually it speaks more about the problems with believing something without evidence, dogmatically, and for no good reason.
"If you continue to complain about Old Testament perversions of God's Law, you're being more Christian than you think."
Actually it's all the atrocious stuff that your god ordered to be done in the OT that makes him seem less than loving and not anyone else's "perversion" of the law.
How any christian can claim that the OT god didn't say the things attributed to him in the OT, and still not see how he is projecting his own idea of a god onto his interpretation of the scriptures, speaks volumes about his lack of critical thinking skills and logical inconsistencies.
By the way, the Darwin 'quote' is a classic quote mine, and does not refelct what Darwin said and thought.
After saying how people have trouble imagining how the eye could ahppen, he explains how it did.
Somehow, people who claim to 'know' what Darwin wrote never get around to mentioning that part.
Part 2 of the Darwin quote that every ID proponent conveniently leaves out: "When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
Ok, in response to the first post, these are NOT my beliefs, read it carefully, it is an article I found in my school newspaper and I wanted to present it here to see what yalls thoughts were..I am NOT a christian.
Ok, in response to the first post, sorry if this posts again, had a little trouble on the first one. I am Beaster, the one who sent in this article, but I DID NOT write the article in question. I found it in my school newspaper and presented it here. I do NOT agree with the Christian responses or their side. I simply put it here to get some opinions on the stuff in this article. Just wanted to clarify that since the first person thought it was me taking the Christian side.....LOL...its ok though, it happens.
So if God is good, then why does he allow such bad things to happen? The answer is simply this: One of God's greatest gifts to us is our free agency. We are free to do as we please, even if our choices hurt others. This life is a test, and God will not intervene or remove the tests until the close of the examination.
First of all, I hate when people trivialize human life as some sort of dress rehersal for another life. why would god, in his infinite wisdom not just create us in that second life rather than test us. He doesn't like to be tested according to the Bible, so why does he test us?
My second point is, Christians always get angry when Atheists or non-theist use the Bible to prove their point and sya things like, "You only use the Bible when it is convinient for you", but then Christians only use the words of Darwin when it is convienient for them. Might I remind people that Darwin wrote Origin of Species, in horribly opressive times and that he only wrote it as a theory, not as a 100% true account of what happened, unlike Christians who say that everything they teach is infalible.
Oops! I saw this part of my above posts wasn't worded right:
"He's jumping over some major hurdles with this bit of subjectivness."
What I should have said was:
"He's ignoring some major hurdles with this bit of subjectiveness"
Here are my replies to those first points those christians made.
Here is something that was in my school newspaper, The Daily Toreador, and some of the comments made by some Christians. I found it rather interesting, and I apologize in advance for the length. It's rather confusing how they have an excuse for everything it seems. What are ya'lls thoughts?
#1 - It really bothers me when people blame God for the bad things that happen in the world and say he doesn't care about us or he doesn't know how to deal with us.
#1 Reply - Well, we are basing our statement on the hypothesis that the Christian is correct about the attributes of their god (all powerful and all loving).
#2 - First, let me establish that God is real and that he knows what he is doing. The first and best sources are the scriptures and the words of the prophets. They teach that God does live, that he cares about us and that he has a plan for all of us.
#2 Reply - It is not established that God is real, because if it was established, everyone in the world would believe in God. The "first" sources for the belief in God didn't come from the scriptures, because belief in God existed prior to a word being written down. The scriptures would also NOT be the best source for God being real. For every "nice" scripture of God saying he cares in the bible, there are plenty which contradict such a claim either by word or by what God does. Similar to a wifebeater who simply says "I love you" over and over, but his actions clearly contradict his words.
#3 - Unfortunately, some people think that the Bible is "out-of-date" and not applicable to today's problems. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe if people applied the teachings found in the Bible, there would be far fewer problems in our society.
#3 Reply - Actually, it is quite fortunate many people (including Christians) do not apply the bible to their everyday lives or use it for "modern" morality. When people applied the bible's "morality" to life, there was 1500 years of horror over Europe. To want that to happen again is not just stupid, it is lunacy. We have had the bible pushed on us whether we are Christians or not, and yet crime still continued to rise, meaning pushing the bible or living by it does nothing to prevent crime or stop problems in society. Don't forget, that many non-religious societies today are LESS violent and have LESS crime per capita than the most devoutly religious ones who follow the bible. That means not only does the bible NOT bring fewer problems, it brings about more problems.
#4 - For those who want more than the Bible as proof God exists, just look at the beauty that surrounds all of us. For example, spend a clear evening outside town and watch the sunset. Wait until the sky is fully dark, and look up at the night sky.
#4 Reply - While there is much beauty and wonder in the natural world, there is also ugliness and brutality all left free of man's interference. In other words, if beauty in nature proves God exists, then ugliness in nature would prove he doesn't exist, and why such an argument is a failure.
#5 - I reserve the right to laugh and snicker if you think someone else can do a better job than the Master Painter.
#5 Reply - The fact you would think humans cannot do a better job with nature than your "god" has done is funny in itself and your laughter ultimately should be at yourself. We have improved a number of things that nature would have continued to make bad. Such as fighting diseases and viruses that "God" designed to kill us. Such as feeding billions of people through crop genetics and NOT nature. Such as using cord blood to unnaturally cure people of leukemia. Humans have done a far greater job via science to help humanity and make the world better than any god ever invented in the last 10,000 years including your god. Of course, this is using the hypothesis your god exists, which is even more unlikely.
#6 - Or you can take a road trip across the country. Just look at how the scenery changes, how trees appear before your eyes and give way to mountains that then become prairies. The human eye, which takes in everything around it, is more perfect than any camera ever invented.
#6 Reply - Using these non-sequitors is very annoying. Scenery changing does nothing to prove a god exists or doesn't exist. Nor does the human eye (which is not "more" perfect than any camera ever invented). Since when do we need to give cameras a constant supply of nutrition to function properly? We have cameras which can be used underwater without a hitch, but we could not keep using our eye underwater without protection. Or since when do we keep adding lenses to a camera as it gets older? Such a stupid comparison isn't even worth refuting.
#7 - Even Charles Darwin said, "that the eye ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest sense."
#7 Reply - You know, when you take out MOST of a sentence and leave a few words from it in a quote, you can make anyone say whatever you like. Stop using quarter length quotes and use the whole quote before you make Darwin say he disagreed with his own theory. I could just as easily do the same with Jesus in the bible, and you would find that to be awful, but for some reason, it is okay for YOU to do it huh?
#8 - I don't understand how someone can look at nature and not see a divine hand involved. The doubter requires too much when he asks for a sign beyond the miracles of creation.
#8 Reply - I don't understand how someone can blindly and arrogantly think that if there is a creator, it is THEIR specific deity, and not the thousands of others believed in by people. That is interesting, because "doubting Thomas" was a doubter in spite of seeing the "evidence" of Jesus' miracles. And after all that, when he saw the "risen" Jesus, and demanded EVIDENCE for it before he believed, did Jesus do the Christian cop out as you are doing? Or did he give Thomas the evidence he needed to believe? Stop being a hypocrite.
#9 - The passage of time, even long intervals of time, is not a "cause" and provides no answers without an intelligent designer. God knew what he was doing when he put this earth together and placed us on it.
#9 Reply - I challenge you to show me a person who professes that "long intervals of time" are a "cause" of anything. Intelligent design is a LACK of a scientific explanation, it explains NOTHING. I'd prefer a scientist who says "I don't know" to an arrogant religious zealot who doesn't know the basics of science or their religion who says "Not only do I know, I know more than you do". Science wins in the category of being humble, the Christian is the loser.
#10 - This brings me to my second point. If God made the world, he made all the good and evil in it too, right? No. There is a simple concept which should be understood: Everything good comes from God and everything evil comes from the devil Yes, if God is real, so is the devil, and it is the devil who is responsible for tempting men to rape and blow up buildings and all other evils that make the evening news.
#10 Reply - Your second point? Oh boy. I suggest you read your own bible. In Isaiah 45:7, it clearly states that the Lord created evil. Don't forget, if God is all knowing and all powerful, and he created the devil, knowing the devil would do evil to his beloved humans, then God is still responsible for evil, just as a manufacturer would be responsible for a dangerous car they KNOW would kill people. By the way, historically, it has been those in religious faith such as Islam and Christianity which have raped, and blow up buildings for their god. Stop being naive about reality.
#11 - So if God is good, then why does he allow such bad things to happen? The answer is simply this: One of God's greatest gifts to us is our free agency. We are free to do as we please, even if our choices hurt others. This life is a test, and God will not intervene or remove the tests until the close of the examination.
#11 Reply - Using this logic, we should have no problem watching a woman being raped and not lift a finger to stop the "free will" of the rapist. If this life is a test, that means God doesn't know what we will do yet, meaning he isn't all knowing. Can you imagine if I saw a child being killed and instead of trying to stop it, said I watched it happen and didn't stop it because I was "testing" the murderer? What would you think about me? Imagine that and multiply it by the number of humans ever hurt by other humans that you believe God has watched get hurt and didn't lift a finger to help. You have just convinced us to think even lower about your deity than we did previously. Shame on you. Why is it we put a higher standard of ethics on "sinful" humans and not your despicable imaginary friend?
#12 - Some people think the World Trade Center's twin towers would still be standing if it weren't for religion. I say they never would have been built if it weren't for religion.
#12 reply - and I say you are not worth the sperm your father wasted having sex with your mother.
#13 - During the years, countless atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, but this is neither because of God nor his influence - it is because of the lack of God in our lives. We continue to remove him from our society, and then we wonder why we have so many problems.
#13 Reply - See my #3 Reply
#14 - It is naive to think it is God who made "a very cruel world" and "good" people can have more morals than God. In the Bible, Joshua urged his people to "choose you this day whom ye will serve." To the extent we all choose wisely in this regard, the world will be a much better place.
#14 Reply - See my #11 Reply
I'm too lazy to keep writing.
Read that about Isaiah 45:7
http://www.carm.org/diff/Isa_45_7.htm
Arminians are heretics.
God created evil: CLICK HERE
Also CLICK HERE to see that free-willer Christians are heretics.
To giuseppe,
From carm.com
"We can see that the Bible teaches that God is pure and does not approve of evil, that the word "rah" (evil) in Hebrew can mean many things, and that contextually, the verse is speaking calamity and distress. Therefore, God does not create evil in the moral sense, but in the sense of disaster, of calamity."
Nice god you got there!
Thanks for the laughs!
If you believe in xian god...
Go to a childrens burn unit in the hospital...
I have never seen anything more that can tear a loving god to shreds...
It's all bullshit..
Misitheus wrote:
If you believe in xian god...
Go to a childrens burn unit in the hospital...
----
Misitheus,
Of all the human suffering examples I've seen used for evidence that the xtian god cannot exist, this has to one of the very best I've seen someone put-out-there.
Of course, all these burned children are the result of "human sin" against this sicko xtian god [rolling eyes]
I wonder what the xtian fundies say to these children who are in horrific pain from being burned so badly?
Of course, they will just say god had a divine purpose, and then spew out a few dozen prayers over the burn victim.
If the child lives, then the prayers worked. Praise the lard (but never the doctors and nurses).
If the child dies, well, of course god had another purpose for them up in his home (but couldn't take their lives in a far less painless manner).
For the life of me, how can anyone worship such a god figurehead !!!
ATF (Who thinks if god created hell's fires, then he should be arrested for the crime of arson)
GO MATTHEW HOCKER!!! WELL PUT. TELL US WHAT YOU REALLY THINK NEXT TIME! (LOL)
Matthew Hocker,
Top rate arguments; excellent stuff that many of us here can perhaps use to counter the many examples of irrational or stupid thinking from God-believers.
I enjoyed reading your post. Pl continue to write.
well as a physics grad, i find beauty in the cold vacuum of space, even tho it is at 2.3K and contains about 3 atoms per cubic meter...the universe is fantastically constructed but I find that a poor argument for the judeo-christian desert god who hates everything and is so insecure about his abilities that he needs to test his creation according to some contradictory text that would be laughed off the planet if some psychotically delusional cult not grabbed a hold of it
Another place that I can point xtian zealots too that shows the depth of human suffering that "god" allows is a thread on a local bulletin board that is for the grieving parents of dead children...after reading 5 posts I couldn't continue due to tears. I am the parent of a 6 month old and ... i'll stop there...
Xtians are mentally ill & delusional and need to be institutionalised to spare the rest of us from their gloomy and ultimately psychologically destructive outlook on life.
Post a Comment