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

[Crunchy Cat]

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.

That's a significant improvement towards a definition... one of 4 listed on
dictionary.com. I will assert that by this 'definition' that child starvation
is no more evil than open heart surgery (harm), wind blowing away
a $20 bill (misfortune), or a farmer burning a field (destruction). If this
sounds correct then "evil" is so broad that it's meaning loses value. Of course
if this sounds incorrect then the 'definition' provided is again inadequate.

 

[zanket]

I will assert that by this 'definition' that child starvation
is no more evil than open heart surgery (harm), wind blowing away
a $20 bill (misfortune), or a farmer burning a field (destruction).

Agreed. That's pretty much my point in this thread. All these things are good from a different perspective. The starving child gives others the experience of concern, mercy, feeling of luckiness for not starving, etc. Open heart surgery repairs the heart. Someone else finds the $20 bill. The next crop grows better after the field is burned.

People in this thread are asking the age-old question: If God is benevolent then how come life sucks? But life sucks only for the pessimist. The thinking optimist sees that the existence of the “evil” is a grand demonstration that we have free will. No God forces our hand. We are free to live in tsunami zones or even ram our head into a wall. We are free to rape and pillage, be raped and pillaged, or care for those raped and pillaged.

 

[okinrus]

zanket, perhaps we force God's hand into allowing suffering. After all, if Adam hadn't eaten of the fruit, perhaps suffering would not exist. He allows, then, only because mankind has forced him. A world without suffering but with man's sin might then be worse for us than a world with suffering.

 

[zanket]

zanket, perhaps we force God's hand into allowing suffering.

Now you’re getting it! Only we don’t force, we choose. God’s purpose is to assist in making our choices our reality. God's will is our will.

After all, if Adam hadn't eaten of the fruit, perhaps suffering would not exist. He allows, then, only because mankind has forced him.

That legend describes how we chose (and continue to choose) the suffering with our free will. We can choose differently at any time.

A world without suffering but with man's sin might then be worse for us than a world with suffering.

Doesn’t compute. There is no sin. There are only choices, none wrong.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Agreed. That's pretty much my point in this thread. All these things are good from a different perspective. The starving child gives others the experience of concern, mercy, feeling of luckiness for not starving, etc. Open heart surgery repairs the heart. Someone else finds the $20 bill. The next crop grows better after the field is burned.

Interesting, the open heart surgery may fail and the patient dies, the
$20 bill may blow into a sewer, the crop burning may produce no
different results... and so on. I was asserting that the definition of 'evil'
provided is so broad that it's meaningless and doesn't really define anything
either. The exercise of coming up with a concise definition will inevitably
fail; however, this is to be expected for subjective mental phenomenoa.
My point of addressing 'evil' was to point out that Godless' argument feel
apart the moment he tried to utilize 'evil' as support for his assertion.

People in this thread are asking the age-old question: If God is benevolent then how come life sucks? But life sucks only for the pessimist. The thinking optimist sees that the existence of the “evil” is a grand demonstration that we have free will. No God forces our hand. We are free to live in tsunami zones or even ram our head into a wall. We are free to rape and pillage, be raped and pillaged, or care for those raped and pillaged.

Regardless of what people in the thread are doing, SouthStar is taking
the path of contradicting the written 'word of God' with reality. If we
remove the written (or even verbally passed) 'word of God' from the picture
as nothing but a fairy tale then we are left with an absence of 'God' or
a completely different assertion of it's existence, which I predict would have
less support than any existing religions do.

 

[Jan Ardena]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Remember folks:

[list=1][SIZE=3][*]Because these children have commited despicable sin, God has no choice but to punish them so.
[*]Because of free will, the loving God will not interfere with their suffering.[/quote]

From a spiritual perspective, the body is a vehicle/medium through which the soul expresses itself. According to Bhagavad Gita, the soul is not affected by material nature, it is neither born or dies. Some time after the death of its current body, it is transfered to another womb, which is suitable for its current state of consciousness.
[b]([I]REV 20:4 I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of God's word, [/I]
Here the testimony cleary reveals an understand of this.)[/b]

Sometimes conditions are favorable and sometimes not.
God is concerned with the soul, not the body.

Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

The body, on the other hand, is subject to all kinds of effects ranging from sad to happy. This body is the product of nature. When we 'sin' we transgress the laws of nature and as such we must recieve a reaction equal (at least) to our commited action (karma).

[QUOTE]In fact, He has been quoted as responding to their cries by exclaiming, "Hell no!"[/QUOTE]

Examples.

[QUOTE][*]In fact, because He has ordered Christians to be pious and Christ like, you can clearly see the pope adorned in rags and filth, mourning over the suffering of the children.[/QUOTE]

I thought you were discussing God, now it seems you are discussing sectarian religions. Make up your mind.

[QUOTE][*]Suffering will force the sinful little ones to come to know Christ! Hallelujah![/QUOTE]

You're all wrapped up in sentiment. The body comes into being, it grows, produces, dwindles then vanishes. At every point the soul remains constant.

[QUOTE]So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. [/QUOTE]

Is that how you understand the passage? If that is the case it is little wonder, you proclaim yourself atheist.

[QUOTE]Is there any Christian around who can give us a few reasons why these children should be thankful to God?[/QUOTE]

Why ask only Christians? And if you want to go down that extremely narrow road; How do you know that these children or their parents are Christians?
It seems to me that, like all gross materialist, you use suffering children to get your point across, because the average persons finds those images extremely emotional, and any attempt at explanations would seem brutally cold and heartless.

[QUOTE]How long should they wait for Jesus to send manna before they realize the truth?[/QUOTE]

What is the truth?

Your understanding of spriritual science appears to be the same now as it was before your proclamation.

[QUOTE]Ask and ye shall recieve; Give thanks to the Lord in your trials and tribulations; Glory be![/QUOTE]

Ask for what? That is the question.

Jan Ardena.

 

[zanket]

My point of addressing 'evil' was to point out that Godless' argument feel
apart the moment he tried to utilize 'evil' as support for his assertion.

I think you're nitpicking. To me it's not overly broad to say that "evil" is all the really bad stuff that happens, like tsunamis, gang rapes, etc. If you really don't like the word evil in the argument then just substitute the laundry list of bad stuff for it.

If we
remove the written (or even verbally passed) 'word of God' from the picture
as nothing but a fairy tale then we are left with an absence of 'God' or
a completely different assertion of it's existence, which I predict would have
less support than any existing religions do.

I don't get you're point here. It seems you are saying that the world I describe, where we have free will to experience both bad and good, is not recognizably different than one without God. I would agree if it weren't for all the evidence that there is a God. There is tons of evidence, almost all of it personal accounts, which is the way it would be in a realm where people wanted the free will to disbelieve in God.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I think you're nitpicking. To me it's not overly broad to say that "evil" is all the really bad stuff that happens, like tsunamis, gang rapes, etc. If you really don't like the word evil in the argument then just substitute the laundry list of bad stuff for it.

I can find very positice results of both tsunamis and gang rapes. The
definition of 'evil' provided would have to cover both the negative and
the positive... and if it does then it becomes diluted with broadness.

I don't get you're point here. It seems you are saying that the world I describe, where we have free will to experience both bad and good, is not recognizably different than one without God.

This is correct; ergo (did I just use that word?), you understood quite well.

I would agree if it weren't for all the evidence that there is a God. There is tons of evidence, almost all of it personal accounts, which is the way it would be in a realm where people wanted the free will to disbelieve in God.

If it would be ok to ask, what is the single most significant piece of evidence
that was experienced?

 

[zanket]

I can find very positice results of both tsunamis and gang rapes. The
definition of 'evil' provided would have to cover both the negative and
the positive... and if it does then it becomes diluted with broadness.

Not if the point of the argument is to show (like you say) that the evil stuff (or laundry list of bad stuff) is also positive from a different perspective. It’s not diluting the word because “evil” still refers to only the bad perspective. Since the argument can definitely be made, we know that we are just hammering out semantics.

If it would be ok to ask, what is the single most significant piece of evidence
that was experienced?

As I mentioned above, I’d say that it’s past-life experiences. Anybody can go to a decent hypnotherapist and re-experience their past lives. The hypnotherapist minimally prompts (like “go to the life before that,” or “go to the next highlight within that life,” etc.), yet the first-person experiences are so mind-blowingly vivid and realistic that afterwards few doubt reincarnation. Within these sessions one can also probe their in-between lives; i.e. their life between lives on Earth or elsewhere (life is eternal). This is where a great understanding of God can be had, since in-between our physical lives we are much more aware of God (the collective consciousness that is life in general—not a man or any other entity outside of ourselves).

 

[one_raven]

zanket,
Past life regression is hardly proof positive.
Even if we accepted that as proof of reincarnation (of which is falls dramatically short) it still doesn't imply that there is a God.

 

[zanket]

You can say the same about anything. I can no more prove reincarnation than you can prove that trees exist. Anybody can experience their past lives and draw their own conclusion. If I can experience a past life to the same degree of realness as I can experience a tree, I am apt to believe in the existence of both. Same with God.

 

[one_raven]

Well, that's not really true is it?
There is tangible empirical evidence of trees.
Empirical evidence is vastly different than personal accounts and assurances of highly subjective experiences of greatly questioned tactics.

That is really beside the point, however.
The whole point you seemed to miss is that even if we DID accept past life transgression as proof of reincarnation...
In other words, let's say, for sake of argument that reincarnation exists.
How does that imply the existence of God in any way?
Why do you need a "God" to have reincarnation?
Why are they part and parcel?
They aren't.

 

[Huwy]

I love your post.

Very good point.

Its not right to blame the wealthy countries for the poverty/illness/suffering of the third world, unless they have actually caused it (which they sometimes do).

However, trust the deluded to believe that god is loving, because they are wealthy and well fed, and be ignorant of all the suffering in the world.
I think this post is a criticism of THOSE people.

Also after letting go of the tooth fairy, santa, and god, I became an atheist.
Since then I have found humanism.
Its not about how great we are but how good we can be if we try, how wonderful people are at the best of times.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Not if the point of the argument is to show (like you say) that the evil stuff (or laundry list of bad stuff) is also positive from a different perspective. It’s not diluting the word because “evil” still refers to only the bad perspective. Since the argument can definitely be made, we know that we are just hammering out semantics.

Even in the same perspective the dilution occurs. If I have some bad
diarrhea (sp?), I have misfortune and possibly destruction. The broadness
of the defintion would encompass diarrhea. Similarly, what if a 'bad' thing
happens to someone, but that's what they want? I understand the
points being made about 'evil' and I am just not seeing it as being a solid
foundation which Godless could base his argument on.

As I mentioned above, I’d say that it’s past-life experiences. Anybody can go to a decent hypnotherapist and re-experience their past lives. The hypnotherapist minimally prompts (like “go to the life before that,” or “go to the next highlight within that life,” etc.), yet the first-person experiences are so mind-blowingly vivid and realistic that afterwards few doubt reincarnation. Within these sessions one can also probe their in-between lives; i.e. their life between lives on Earth or elsewhere (life is eternal). This is where a great understanding of God can be had, since in-between our physical lives we are much more aware of God (the collective consciousness that is life in general—not a man or any other entity outside of ourselves).

Thank you for sharing that. I've seen dragons, spiders, rainbow color lights,
bon bon's with spears, and even little yorkie-like dogs in conciousness (no
drugs or otherwise special influencers). They were all vivid and realistic.
What makes past life regression any more truthful than what I have seen?
Similarly, now that it's established that we have both experienced some
very fantastic events, why should these events be accepted as truth
especially when it becomes very clear that sensory input is not only
interpreted by the brain but can also be generated by the brain?

 

[zanket]

Well, that's not really true is it?
There is tangible empirical evidence of trees.
Empirical evidence is vastly different than personal accounts and assurances of highly subjective experiences of greatly questioned tactics.

Tangible goes to realness or touch. A past-life experiences feels real, including touch. Empirical goes to observation or experiment. A past-life experience fits both. It is a personal experience that is tangible empirical evidence, subjective or not. There is no way to prove if the reality you experience now is not in your mind; i.e. subjective. We simply define it to not be. No truth is provable—all truths are axioms.

A better way to understand this is to go experience a past life. When you have an experience that is every bit as real as this one, only in the sixteenth century, your argument will seem silly.

The whole point you seemed to miss is that even if we DID accept past life transgression as proof of reincarnation...
In other words, let's say, for sake of argument that reincarnation exists.
How does that imply the existence of God in any way?
Why do you need a "God" to have reincarnation?
Why are they part and parcel?
They aren't.

I agree—they aren’t. I said:

Within these sessions one can also probe their in-between lives; i.e. their life between lives on Earth or elsewhere (life is eternal). This is where a great understanding of God can be had, since in-between our physical lives we are much more aware of God (the collective consciousness that is life in general—not a man).

This way of knowing God has nothing to do with reincarnation per se. I said:

If I can experience a past life to the same degree of realness as I can experience a tree, I am apt to believe in the existence of both. Same with God.

That is, if I can experience God to the same degree of realness as I can experience a tree, I am apt to believe in the existence of both.

 

[one_raven]

Empirical evidence is much more than simple one person experiencing something (regardless of who real it feels) and relating that experience to another.
It is objectively tangible and can be experienced, measured and quantified objectively.

I am not saying that reincarnation necessarilt does not exist.
I AM saying, however, that we have no objective evidence of it.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that there is NO difference between the validity of a claim that the Earth exists and a claim that I was X person in a past life because I felt it while I was under hypnosis?
If so, then we really have nothing to discuss.

If not, then I will continue with your other points.

 

[zanket]

Even in the same perspective the dilution occurs. If I have some bad
diarrhea (sp?), I have misfortune and possibly destruction. The broadness
of the defintion would encompass diarrhea.

Having evilness include diarrhea doesn’t seem to dilute the meaning of the word. The laundry list of “evil” could be a thousand miles long. As long as it doesn’t include the thousand miles of generally accepted good stuff, few will be confused.

Similarly, what if a 'bad' thing happens to someone, but that's what they want?

As long as the thing is “bad” to most people, few will be confused. Always some people will be confused. We can’t cater to them and still have a decent discussion.

I've seen dragons, spiders, rainbow color lights,
bon bon's with spears, and even little yorkie-like dogs in conciousness (no
drugs or otherwise special influencers). They were all vivid and realistic.
What makes past life regression any more truthful than what I have seen?

Not more truthful. More believable. More convincing. Unlike the dragons I presume, you can re-experience a past life at will. No matter how often you do it, the experience will not alter but rather be filled in with ever greater detail.

Similarly, now that it's established that we have both experienced some
very fantastic events, why should these events be accepted as truth
especially when it becomes very clear that sensory input is not only
interpreted by the brain but can also be generated by the brain?

Indeed, by the same token why should any event be accepted as truth? What is true is a matter of faith. Always! So even that is a matter of faith. A truism is self-evident (yes, that is a play on the word, but it's true I tell ya). What is generally accepted as truth is that for which our personal evidence matches.

 

[zanket]

Empirical evidence is much more than simple one person experiencing something (regardless of who real it feels) and relating that experience to another.
It is objectively tangible and can be experienced, measured and quantified objectively.

So you say. Why stick to a definition of reality that excludes personal-only experiences? If you are in pain but nobody else can experience it, measure it, or quantify it beyond your description of it, are you not in pain? You must not be, by your logic.

I am not saying that reincarnation necessarilt does not exist.
I AM saying, however, that we have no objective evidence of it.

Right now we don’t. But we would, if you re-experienced a past life.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that there is NO difference between the validity of a claim that the Earth exists and a claim that I was X person in a past life because I felt it while I was under hypnosis?

There is no difference. You assign the existence of the Earth more validity because you have not re-experienced that past life in glorious detail to give it equal validity.

 

[§outh§tar]

From a spiritual perspective, the body is a vehicle/medium through which the soul expresses itself. According to Bhagavad Gita, the soul is not affected by material nature, it is neither born or dies. Some time after the death of its current body, it is transfered to another womb, which is suitable for its current state of consciousness.
(REV 20:4 I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of God's word,
Here the testimony cleary reveals an understand of this.)

And how did you know "the body is a vehicle/medium through which the soul expresses itself"?

Sometimes conditions are favorable and sometimes not.
God is concerned with the soul, not the body.

And how did you know this?

The body, on the other hand, is subject to all kinds of effects ranging from sad to happy. This body is the product of nature. When we 'sin' we transgress the laws of nature and as such we must recieve a reaction equal (at least) to our commited action (karma).

What "laws of nature" do I transgress if I swore?

I thought you were discussing God, now it seems you are discussing sectarian religions. Make up your mind.

No difference there.

You're all wrapped up in sentiment. The body comes into being, it grows, produces, dwindles then vanishes. At every point the soul remains constant.

And how did you know this?

Is that how you understand the passage? If that is the case it is little wonder, you proclaim yourself atheist.

Aah, my interpretation is wrong but yours is correct. Sorry.

Why ask only Christians? And if you want to go down that extremely narrow road; How do you know that these children or their parents are Christians?
It seems to me that, like all gross materialist, you use suffering children to get your point across, because the average persons finds those images extremely emotional, and any attempt at explanations would seem brutally cold and heartless.

Non-Christians can and have answered too, as you can clearly see across the pages.

What is the truth?

Your understanding of spriritual science appears to be the same now as it was before your proclamation.

My understanding is wrong but yours is correct. Sorry.

Ask for what? That is the question.

Jan Ardena.

Salvation.

 

[§outh§tar]

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.

Why would you argue such a position if you are going to advocate deism? That seems arbitrary to me.