First, if you accept the possibiltiy of an afterlife, why does it automatically have to been a lame version. How do you know what's evil here isn't just to contrast good. Once you've demonstrated you can resist sex, drugs, gluttonous foods, fighting, and stealing, you get absolute freedom to do as you please without the consequences. If there is not such thing as pain, then alot of things that were wrong here wouldn't mean squatt there (go ahead and play russian rollete with your brother...best of three wins!) Even if your christian, heavan does not have to be "harps and crappy music." I figure if God is to reward someone for there time here on earth it would be just that, a reward. And with his infinite wisdom and power i figure he can think of an infinite ways to entertain, boredom would not be an option. Which also means hell wouldn't have to become an exercise infutilety if he didn't want it to. If there is a heavan i'd definetely want to go.
Arguement from EVIL
- Thread starter MooseKnuckle
- Start date
First, if you accept the possibiltiy of an afterlife, why does it automatically have to been a lame version. How do you know what's evil here isn't just to contrast good. Once you've demonstrated you can resist sex, drugs, gluttonous foods, fighting, and stealing, you get absolute freedom to do as you please without the consequences. If there is not such thing as pain, then alot of things that were wrong here wouldn't mean squatt there (go ahead and play russian rollete with your brother...best of three wins!) Even if your christian, heavan does not have to be "harps and crappy music." I figure if God is to reward someone for there time here on earth it would be just that, a reward. And with his infinite wisdom and power i figure he can think of an infinite ways to entertain, boredom would not be an option. Which also means hell wouldn't have to become an exercise infutilety if he didn't want it to. If there is a heavan i'd definetely want to go.
Resist sex?? Are you mad or just young? Sex is wonderful and something pretty much every living thing on this planet engages in. If im not allowed access to heaven cause i have sex or if im not allowed to have sex once im in heaven then i concur i'd rather just stay dead when i am dead.
Ok, ok there's some wonderful moral teachings- dont steal, fight, do drugs yada yada but how could anyone include sex on that list? Explain to me the harm in having sex? Jesus works through me so it's actually him getting laid, not me
Ok, ok there's some wonderful moral teachings- dont steal, fight, do drugs yada yada but how could anyone include sex on that list? Explain to me the harm in having sex? Jesus works through me so it's actually him getting laid, not me
Hi heflores,
Correct me if I misunderstand Moose, he says the existence of evil in this world, does not exclude the existence of God, but because there is evil, then it is extremely improbable that God exists. Maybe I don’t quite understand the “does not logically exclude the existence of God bit.
Then he concludes that it is quite unreasonable to believe in God as we know Him, based on the above evidence, ok thus far?
Is he not saying that God could not possibly exist, because there is evil in the world?
I may be wrong, but that is how it sounds to me.
That is understandable.
That is understandable, every religion says the same thing, in different degrees. This is what I mean about seriously discussing God, there must be a bona-fide source, such as Qur’an, Bible, Gita, otherwise it is just willy-nilly talk.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Oh.... we must use bone-fide sources? In which case i wonder why you never refer to Sumerian texts- (the original works of so many younger translated texts like the bible etc).
If you haven't studied Sumerian texts who are you to call the bible bone-fide?
If you haven't studied Sumerian texts who are you to call the bible bone-fide?
Originally posted by SnakeLord
Resist sex?? Are you mad or just young? Sex is wonderful and something pretty much every living thing on this planet engages in. If im not allowed access to heaven cause i have sex or if im not allowed to have sex once im in heaven then i concur i'd rather just stay dead when i am dead.
Ok, ok there's some wonderful moral teachings- dont steal, fight, do drugs yada yada but how could anyone include sex on that list? Explain to me the harm in having sex? Jesus works through me so it's actually him getting laid, not me
I'm not saying the act of having sex is wrong or right. I'm saying that their are times when it is better to not have sex than to have to have sex.
Ex. 1 You know you have HIV and a fetish for 14-year old girls. I can't see any reason why it would be right to have sex with the young girls in this scencario.
Ex. 2. You've made a commitment to have sex with one woman for the rest of your life (wife) but your hot secartary keeps giving you the "i want to have a 3 hour sex-a-thon on your boss's desk" look. The fact that your wife would be devastated by your actions should be enough of an reason to turn down the sex-a-thon. Now if she doesn't mind....that's another scenario.
The ability to control your actions (not in the context of religious values, or societal values) may be the key to a heavanly reward...if their is a GOD.
Oh, so you're talking to me now?
I am not fully aware of those texts, however, if they are from God, then add them to the list.
Love
Jan Ardena.
When was i not talking to you? If you refer to the discussion of 'love' etc i'd be more than willing to continue. I actually have my response in a notepad file on my desktop but had to rush out so left it half done. Now i dont even know what post it belonged in so i'ts sat on my desktop gathering dust
And yes the Sumerian writing is of the same nature of all holy texts.... i wasn't sure if it counted cause Visitor told me it was garbage although he admitted he had never even heard of it. go figure...
And yes the Sumerian writing is of the same nature of all holy texts.... i wasn't sure if it counted cause Visitor told me it was garbage although he admitted he had never even heard of it. go figure...
Originally posted by SnakeLord
When was i not talking to you? If you refer to the discussion of 'love' etc i'd be more than willing to continue. I actually have my response in a notepad file on my desktop but had to rush out so left it half done. Now i dont even know what post it belonged in so i'ts sat on my desktop gathering dust
And yes the Sumerian writing is of the same nature of all holy texts.... i wasn't sure if it counted cause Visitor told me it was garbage although he admitted he had never even heard of it. go figure...
I get the feeling there is some hostility toward me, from you, why?
Love
Jan Ardena.
MooseKnuckle
Registered Senior Member
Jan
"Is he not saying that God could not possibly exist, because there is evil in the world?"
just before you made this statement you said.........
Correct me if I misunderstand Moose, he says the existence of evil in this world, does not exclude the existence of God, but because there is evil, then it is extremely improbable that God exists."
I guess you did misunderstand, cause I never said he could not possibly exist because there is evil but his existance is improbable. Next time please try not to misconstrue my words to fit your liking.
I like this arguement because I feel that it should make theists think about their beliefs and if they do have a proper response then go ahead and list it, understand that it was not I who came up with this arguement, I am just restating it, so I am not to blame for the fact that you dont like it. I think everyone can agree that it is a very thought provoking arguement that deserves to be answered.
Please do not try to disgress from this topic and try to focus the attention on another irrelevant topic, running will not make the problem dissapear
"Is he not saying that God could not possibly exist, because there is evil in the world?"
just before you made this statement you said.........
Correct me if I misunderstand Moose, he says the existence of evil in this world, does not exclude the existence of God, but because there is evil, then it is extremely improbable that God exists."
I guess you did misunderstand, cause I never said he could not possibly exist because there is evil but his existance is improbable. Next time please try not to misconstrue my words to fit your liking.
I like this arguement because I feel that it should make theists think about their beliefs and if they do have a proper response then go ahead and list it, understand that it was not I who came up with this arguement, I am just restating it, so I am not to blame for the fact that you dont like it. I think everyone can agree that it is a very thought provoking arguement that deserves to be answered.
Please do not try to disgress from this topic and try to focus the attention on another irrelevant topic, running will not make the problem dissapear
Last edited:
Originally posted by MooseKnuckle
Jan,
"Is he not saying that God could not possibly exist, because there is evil in the world?"
just before you made this statement you said.........
Correct me if I misunderstand Moose, he says the existence of evil in this world, does not exclude the existence of God, but because there is evil, then it is extremely improbable that God exists."
I guess you did misunderstand, cause I never said he could not possibly exist because there is evil but his existance is improbable. Next time please try not to misconstrue my words to fit your liking.
Don’t forget the word “extremely” which preceded the word “improbable,” and your addition of “should be thought of as strong evidence against statement,” a little further on. I fail to see how, from that position, there could be any possibility in your mind that God could exist, and even if I did exaggerate, I don’t think I was that far off.
Firstly, there is no argument, as you fail to answer my questions, and secondly, what makes you think theists don’t think about their beliefs, have you spoken to them?
Then what does this mean?
But if anyone thinks that they can give a good objection to this argument…
You have clearly come up with this argument, my objection is the source or lack thereof, of your analyses and conclusion.
Nice try, but I have not expressed any emotion, I’m merley interested in how far you have gone to come to your conclusion.
I think everyone can agree that it is a very thought provoking arguement that deserves to be answered.[/quoteI]
If you want in depth answers, then elaborate on your first post, or answer the questions I put foreward, otherwise it will be the usual “God cannot be omniscient, if we have freewill argument”, which has been covered countless times on this forum, only to come to no avail. If you want thought provoking, then lets open this up.
Look, you’ve come to a conclusion, the conclusion is basically that God does not exist. I’m asking why? Where is that irrelevant? At least try and answer my questions, if I have misunderstood you, it shall become clear, and I will hold up my hand.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Excellent. I would have alot more posts if you did make them before I even read the thread(and some of these are loooooong threads).
I agree with you, but...some don't. What say to a certain Susan Blackmore? She claims to have proven there is no afterlife, or at least she feels her data convict the concept enough to rule out afterlives in her mind. And I do find very few...well, no proofs for the afterlife that don't come with their own set of blind-faith dogmas. There's an afterlife because Jesus died for us/God is benevolent/karma is a cycle, etc.
OK, fair enough, but only given the most childish, unsophisticated of Christian cosmologies. If we are having fun conjecturing about random, unknowable afterlives, let's, well, "live it up," shall we?
Suppose personal physical limits i.e. body, thought capacity, ect. By the time you're learned half of eternity, the other half is long gone. Learn it again! Do all the shit you forgot you did! If you live long enough on earth, that's how life here will be. Except your back eventually goes out. We'll not suppose this personal limit in the afterlife.
Next. Suppose no personal or physical limitation at all. Cosmic Consciousness and all such. Can't understand it now, but who knows. I assume boredom ceases to exist in Nirvana. (P.S. I dislike this afterlife. Too boring.)
Third and final. Suppose infinite mental capacity and some personal/corporal limits but throw in some "unlimited willpower." Once you've learned a certain quota, will your self to forget it but retain the desire to go learn it again. Seems ridiculous, but who said the afterlife had to be reasonable. Life here sure isn't.
Oh, the Heart of God is but Glorious Madness! Ahahaha! Hey, that's a good cult idea. I bet I could make hella dough.
Originally posted by wesmorris
I mostly agree with you regarding your assessment of a potential afterlife, but I believe it pertinent to note that "time" in the sense that we know it as living people... wouldn't likely be the same in some kind of "afterlife".. which again I find no compelling evidence of, only warm and fuzzy theories of no real merit. The theory of "you're dead and gone...... buh-bye" certainly has merit, but is no fun if you're into the 7394 recyclable and perpetual virgins and all the cool drugs in the afterlife and whatnot......
*giggle*
Ever notice how no one who goes to Sylvia Browne or John Edwards gets this answer, "Well, I'm getting sulfur and screams, was Uncle Slappy a pedophile or a murderer by chance, oh yes, now I see him. Engulfed in living, black flame. Hi Uncle Slappy."
I'm surprized no Christian radio minister has picked up on this as evidence of hell-denying blasphemy. Or maybe one has.
Why are all afterlife concepts ultimately deemed "good." Christians have their hell and all, but which of them beliesv THEY are personally bound for it? NOne of them unless they're severely depressed or being manipulated by others. Religion has all the smackings of a brand name clothing rack: "For us, by us."
MooseKnuckle
Registered Senior Member
Jan-
I simply restated the arguement from Philosophical Problems and Arguements I wanted responses to this arguement, and with responses I would then throw my two cents in. But understand that it was not my original arguement, I was merely posting it to illicit debate, Not to be blamed for the author's position and to how he arrived at it.
I wanted some replys and with those replys people can start taking sides on the arguement and decide to write down intelligent ideas, i did not want a stalmate to occur regarding the intial question's semantic appeal.
Please dont be so much on "attack mode" and instead take a deep breath and relax, after lowering your blood pressure decide to allow the newly freed blood to flow through your brain and with this energy let it be focused on the issue at hand. Sorry if this was in a codescending context, but the message still stands.........relax
I simply restated the arguement from Philosophical Problems and Arguements I wanted responses to this arguement, and with responses I would then throw my two cents in. But understand that it was not my original arguement, I was merely posting it to illicit debate, Not to be blamed for the author's position and to how he arrived at it.
I wanted some replys and with those replys people can start taking sides on the arguement and decide to write down intelligent ideas, i did not want a stalmate to occur regarding the intial question's semantic appeal.
Please dont be so much on "attack mode" and instead take a deep breath and relax, after lowering your blood pressure decide to allow the newly freed blood to flow through your brain and with this energy let it be focused on the issue at hand. Sorry if this was in a codescending context, but the message still stands.........relax
Last edited:
Originally posted by MooseKnuckle
Thanks for your concern Moose, I’m sure it was meant with the best of intentions, for my well-being, my blood pressure is fine thank you, and the blood is flowing very nicely thank you very much. As I was not in attack mode, I am now beginning to understand that this line of questioning must be quite difficult for you to fully comprehend, as it has not been covered on any of the “how to answer religionists/christians” sections, on forums such as atheism.org, or the like.
Yes, it was a bit condescending, but most of us who believe in God, have become accustomed to such childish prittle- prattle, from non-believers, be it direct or indirect. I believe your number was got, when you said; “whos this truthseeker character?? a preacher????? cause they tend to make my ears bleed.”
However for the sake of any further delays, I have received your message loud and clear, and would now apreciate it, very much, if you would at least try and answer some of the questions I posed.
Thank you very much, a now, much more relaxed and centered.
Jan Ardena.
:m:
Well then let me ask you THIS, Jan Ardena
First of all, I'm sure you have some conception of what "god" is. I believe the most pertinent question regarding this type of debate is as follows (paraphrased from ConsequentAthiest): By what methodology do you choose YOUR conception of "god" over others?
First of all, I'm sure you have some conception of what "god" is. I believe the most pertinent question regarding this type of debate is as follows (paraphrased from ConsequentAthiest): By what methodology do you choose YOUR conception of "god" over others?
Another of my somewhat insensitive posts from another thread.
By the way...
I meant to mention before.. to all those who are listening:
Religion is a stupid thing based on faith IMO. I really don't care if you have to believe it, but I will continue to scoff at you and riducule you if you continue to attempt to debate your point.
Do you understand your fopa? (how do you spell that?). Faith? You have faith it some seemingly random thing and then try to debate why other people don't believe the same stupid shit you do. YOU CANNOT REASONABLY ASSERT FAITH REGARDING A RELIGION. It is literally impossible by definition. If you were a smart religious person (like many I know) you'd know better than to even discuss it outside of those who feel similarly.. because there's really no way to validly defend your stupid shit. You can be into whatever stupid shit you want, but if you had half a freakin clue, you'd learn not to argue about it... especially with someone who is versed in logic and reason. You don't understand how stupid it is. It's like me betting up on the pulpit and trying to explain religion to you and not understanding it at all. You'd look at me like I was a crackhead. That is why you get ridiculed here, I'm simply better at this than you are, like you are better at me at quoting scripture. Stay with your churchies, quote your scripture. I'll stay here and continue using my brain.
By the way...
I meant to mention before.. to all those who are listening:
Religion is a stupid thing based on faith IMO. I really don't care if you have to believe it, but I will continue to scoff at you and riducule you if you continue to attempt to debate your point.
Do you understand your fopa? (how do you spell that?). Faith? You have faith it some seemingly random thing and then try to debate why other people don't believe the same stupid shit you do. YOU CANNOT REASONABLY ASSERT FAITH REGARDING A RELIGION. It is literally impossible by definition. If you were a smart religious person (like many I know) you'd know better than to even discuss it outside of those who feel similarly.. because there's really no way to validly defend your stupid shit. You can be into whatever stupid shit you want, but if you had half a freakin clue, you'd learn not to argue about it... especially with someone who is versed in logic and reason. You don't understand how stupid it is. It's like me betting up on the pulpit and trying to explain religion to you and not understanding it at all. You'd look at me like I was a crackhead. That is why you get ridiculed here, I'm simply better at this than you are, like you are better at me at quoting scripture. Stay with your churchies, quote your scripture. I'll stay here and continue using my brain.
Re: Well then let me ask you THIS, Jan Ardena
Others? What are you talking about?
And by what methodology does anyone choose anything?
Love
Jan Ardena.
Others? What are you talking about?
And by what methodology does anyone choose anything?
Love
Jan Ardena.
Re: Re: Well then let me ask you THIS, Jan Ardena
By others I belive he meant "other religious/mythological systems." If his record holds, he'll be by to clarify pretty soon.
By what methods do we choose anything? This is an excessively open, rhetorical question. It's a diversion. I see where you might go...we choose things not only for reason but from passion or aesthetic. Still, I could see it argued that what we choose is always based on our senses. God, if extant, is beyond this perameter.
By others I belive he meant "other religious/mythological systems." If his record holds, he'll be by to clarify pretty soon.
By what methods do we choose anything? This is an excessively open, rhetorical question. It's a diversion. I see where you might go...we choose things not only for reason but from passion or aesthetic. Still, I could see it argued that what we choose is always based on our senses. God, if extant, is beyond this perameter.
Re: Re: Well then let me ask you THIS, Jan Ardena
Ganesha, Thor, Allah, Zues... etc.
Further, everyone on the planet has their own conception of god. Not all of them can be right, right? I mean, Zues and you conception of "god" couldn't really exist at the same time could they? I don't mean in your head... I mean in reality... the objective world.
There are a lot of people who claim to have an accurate depiction of "god" right? You seem to be one. Thusly I reiterate: How do you choose your god? Why is YOUR god a more feasible solution to the problem "is there are god?" than "Zues" or whatever? Does there exist some methodology by which you can lead me to the same decision in a manner that I cannot refute? No, there isn't. Thusly, all succesive arguments fail.
Ganesha, Thor, Allah, Zues... etc.
Further, everyone on the planet has their own conception of god. Not all of them can be right, right? I mean, Zues and you conception of "god" couldn't really exist at the same time could they? I don't mean in your head... I mean in reality... the objective world.
There are a lot of people who claim to have an accurate depiction of "god" right? You seem to be one. Thusly I reiterate: How do you choose your god? Why is YOUR god a more feasible solution to the problem "is there are god?" than "Zues" or whatever? Does there exist some methodology by which you can lead me to the same decision in a manner that I cannot refute? No, there isn't. Thusly, all succesive arguments fail.