Thank God I'm An Atheist (Warning: STRONG Content)

[zanket]

Theist claim god to be benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. For a deity to be all this and let evil exist, happen, cause it, know about it, and do nothing about it. Is a scoundrel I would rather not worship.

The argument falls apart if we choose the evil and the deity allows what we choose. It seems you assume we do not choose the evil, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[Godless]

Actually what falls apart is the belief that a supreme being exists, that has control of every action that earth naturally takes upon the cosmos, upon every decision a free will man makes wether it be for evil or good.

G.

 

[§outh§tar]

This seems to be a pretty popular theme lately, so I'll just link you to my answer in another one of these threads...
Here's one of the many

I see why you are so adamant. You chose to use the qualities of omnipotence and omniscience, but you omitted omnibenevolence all the same to make the argument work.

 

[The Devil Inside]

i am a theist, and i claim no such thing about G-d. i do not believe that G-d could be purely good, or purely evil... omnipresence doesnt just mean physical space, people!
i know that even the purest of men have a temptation to do evil sometimes, and G-d sits in these holy men's hearts. G-d has no boundaries. that includes evil.
period.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The argument falls apart if we choose the evil and the deity allows what we choose. It seems you assume we do not choose the evil, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Technically the argument falls apart the moment 'Evil' is used. 'Evil' (much
like 'Good' or 'God' or 'Nothing') does not exist.

 

[everneo]

Does God prevent us from turning into a disaster-proof/warless/famineless/disceaseless society?

 

[one_raven]

I see why you are so adamant. You chose to use the qualities of omnipotence and omniscience, but you omitted omnibenevolence all the same to make the argument work.

No. Not at all, actually.
The entire point of the essay is summed up in the title.
"Abstention from interference does not necessarily imply malevolence"
In other words, a policy of non-interference with "evil", does not necessarily mean that you are not benevolent.
I though I made my case pretty clearly.
You very well may disagree with my reasoning, but...

you omitted omnibenevolence all the same to make the argument work

...is simply not true, and I can't fathom how you could have possibly come to that conclusion if you actually read what I wrote.

If you take issue with my reasoning, or conlusions reached, please, by all means, challenge me. What specifically do you disagree with? Where am I misled?

 

[§outh§tar]

Ok, then just answer this here so I am no longer in danger of misinterpretation:

Are you or are you not assuming God is benevolent in your argument?

 

[one_raven]

In that particular argument, I come from a standpoint that "He" could could very well be omnibenevolent, omnipresent and omnipotent, and still not intervene with the "evils" of this material world.

(edited for typo)

 

[Sufi]

Cannot you still see that there is no god; gods are only in your imaginations.

But there is a "system" in life that operates constantly... and to understand how this system works, you need first to know what is referred to as "Allah" as different from any preconceptions of God in your or in others' minds.

If you can you go beyond assuming that Allah is another god and if your mind is open to learn, go for further to: www.ahmedbaki.com/english

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Cannot you still see that there is no god; gods are only in your imaginations.

But there is a "system" in life that operates constantly... and to understand how this system works, you need first to know what is referred to as "Allah" as different from any preconceptions of God in your or in others' minds.

If you can you go beyond assuming that Allah is another god and if your mind is open to learn, go for further to: www.ahmedbaki.com/english

Yes, we must all submit to the cavernous yield of the blue head

 

[Sufi]

Yes, we must all submit to the cavernous yield of the blue head

Don't!

 

[zanket]

Actually what falls apart is the belief that a supreme being exists, that has control of every action that earth naturally takes upon the cosmos, upon every decision a free will man makes wether it be for evil or good.

That argument does not fall apart if the "supreme" being does not use the control to usurp the free will, but rather to assist it.

Technically the argument falls apart the moment 'Evil' is used. 'Evil' (much like 'Good' or 'God' or 'Nothing') does not exist.

"Evil" here refers to what happens to man in the form of disasters, crime, etc. So it does exist. I agree that a Satanic type of evil does not exist.

 

[§outh§tar]

In that particular argument, I come from a standpoint that "He" could could very well be omnibenevolent, omnipresent and omnipotent, and still not intervene with the "evils" of this material world.

(edited for typo)

Consider this:

If I were to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Now if I created you with the tendencies of a mass murderer, knowing full well in advance that you would become a mass murderer, who would be responsible? Who created you with the predisposition to killing? Now consider that I became FURIOUS with you for mass murdering because you disobeyed my commandment to not kill anyone.

Am I then not responsible? I who formed you and knew your tendencies and knew your actions beforehand? Tell me this.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

"Evil" here refers to what happens to man in the form of disasters, crime, etc. So it does exist.

That's a very general example without definition. I could just as easily
say that "ZiggyZiggyNarf" refers to what happens to man in the form of
disasters, crime, etc. So it does exist. Labeling an example is unfortunately
not an adequate substitute for a definition. Don't let me discourage you
though, I would rather encourage a second try at a definition if it is felt
that "evil" is a real thing.

 

[one_raven]

Consider this:

If I were to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Now if I created you with the tendencies of a mass murderer, knowing full well in advance that you would become a mass murderer, who would be responsible? Who created you with the predisposition to killing? Now consider that I became FURIOUS with you for mass murdering because you disobeyed my commandment to not kill anyone.

Am I then not responsible? I who formed you and knew your tendencies and knew your actions beforehand? Tell me this.

You didn't create me with any tendencies.
Regardless of whether there is a God.
Regardless of whether there is a soul.
My bilogical tendencies, genes, DNA, psysiological make-up...
It ALL came from my Dad's sperm entering my Mom's egg.
It has nothing to do with God at all.

Even if God created humans and if we have souls that come from and retun to Heaven, we are STILL bound by the rules of the physical realm.
The laws of science.

And you know what?
We, as a collective people ARE directly and indirectly responsible for the societies we foster, the pollutants in the environment, the excess radiation from maufacturing...
Nutrure OR nature, we are responsible for our failures.
WE are responsible for the murderers WE create.

 

[Persol]

My bilogical tendencies, genes, DNA, psysiological make-up...
It ALL came from my Dad's sperm entering my Mom's egg.
It has nothing to do with God at all.

If God is everything they say he is, then God knew what you'd be when Adam and Eve were created. If he's all powerful then he could have done differently. That's the point.

 

[one_raven]

If God is everything they say he is, then God knew what you'd be when Adam and Eve were created. If he's all powerful then he could have done differently. That's the point.

I disagree.
Pre-destination can not co-exist with free-will.
Omnipotence does not necessarily imply clairvoyance.
I make a case for it in the essay I linked to above.

 

[zanket]

That's a very general example without definition. I could just as easily
say that "ZiggyZiggyNarf" refers to what happens to man in the form of
disasters, crime, etc. So it does exist. Labeling an example is unfortunately
not an adequate substitute for a definition. Don't let me discourage you
though, I would rather encourage a second try at a definition if it is felt
that "evil" is a real thing.

OK. Here is the dictionary definition: "Evil: That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction." When pictures of hungry kids are shown and then "evil" is discussed, I assume this definition of evil is in use, not Satanic evil.

 

[okinrus]

If God is everything they say he is, then God knew what you'd be when Adam and Eve were created.

Well, whether God knows the future, all of it, is open to debate, I think. (God can still be all knowing, as in knowing all things, but not know the future in its entirety. Parts of the future, then, simply just aren't knowable and are not knowledge. Of course, God would then have to create knowledge). But, for sake of argument, say he does. Then he'd be outside of time and all his creation would have already occurred. Much like we know that something occurred by looking at the evidence, he knows the future because he has allowed it into existence.

If he's all powerful then he could have done differently. That's the point.

That would be so only if he's allowed to do the impossible, the contradictory. If God's omnipotence is restricted to doing well-defined, logically consistent actions, then he cannot do something at a specific time, while also knowing he will do something else. What he will do is as constrained as to what we will do.