dagnarus Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 A real god would not ask for something evil as a test, or at least would not have been pleased that Abraham would do such a thing to his own son. What do you base this upon? How can you say that if there happened to be super-natural beings, such as Gods, that they would be nice guys who wouldn't want people to sacrifice there children to them? Personally I have no problem with the idea that if Gods did exist that they might very well be over joyed at the prospect that we might all be willing to slaughter one another in some desperate attempt to be considered their favourite children. If people can be evil, animals can be evil, the universe in general can be unfair, why wouldn't Gods be capable of being, well, evil? I mean it's already been pointed out that the nature of the universe sure as fuck doesn't point to an all loving and benevolent creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 The concept of human rights becomes irrelevant... This is very true, which is why when I realized this I decided God is evil or nonexistent (I chose nonexistent, since it was the simplest explanation). You apparently are A-OK with this disturbing realization. If people have no inherent rights, then there is nothing inherently wrong about mistreating another person in any way you like (murder, torture, slavery, rape). The only reason you personally have to say these things are morally wrong is that God put them on an arbitrary list of stuff you may not (currently) do. Apparently you place infanticide on the list of stuff you may not (currently) do, but don't see anything inherently evil about it. Which is really just sick, and makes a mockery of Christian claims that atheists have no basis for morality. No, biblical literalists have no basis for morality. I disagree. They definitely have a moral system, and it definitely has a basis in the bible. The fact that it's inferior to secular morality, and internally contradictory doesn't suddenly make it not a moral system, just an inferior moral system. That is probably the most scary thing about people like Phelps, and biblical literalism, not only do they not realize what they do is wrong, they have a moral system which makes what they do, somehow, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 A real god would not ask for something evil as a test, or at least would not have been pleased that Abraham would do such a thing to his own son. What do you base this upon? How can you say that if there happened to be super-natural beings, such as Gods, that they would be nice guys who wouldn't want people to sacrifice there children to them? Personally I have no problem with the idea that if Gods did exist that they might very well be over joyed at the prospect that we might all be willing to one another in some desperate attempt to be considered their favourite children. If people can be evil, animals can be evil, the universe in general can be unfair, why wouldn't Gods be capable of being, well, evil? I mean it's already been pointed out that the nature of the universe sure as fuck doesn't point to an all loving and benevolent creator. I should have said, "A good god..." But then, there being no gods it is a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 What do you base this upon? How can you say that if there happened to be super-natural beings, such as Gods, that they would be nice guys who wouldn't want people to sacrifice there children to them? Personally I have no problem with the idea that if Gods did exist that they might very well be over joyed at the prospect that we might all be willing to one another in some desperate attempt to be considered their favourite children. If people can be evil, animals can be evil, the universe in general can be unfair, why wouldn't Gods be capable of being, well, evil? I mean it's already been pointed out that the nature of the universe sure as fuck doesn't point to an all loving and benevolent creator. The Gnostics in fact believed the universe was created by the evil false god of the OT and Jesus took on the form of the serpent in Genesis and had tried to encourage Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit to give them knowledge and free them from the control of the evil false god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sconnor Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 On what basis can you say that suffering is an evil that God MUST prevent for his creatures? I NEVER claimed he must prevent it. I claimed the god-character from the bible caused the suffering of children and babies. Are you positing a moral value on suffering? Perhaps that suffering is evil? Let me guess...your attempted syllogism works this way: An all-loving (and all-powerful) God would not allow suffering. God allows suffering Therefore God is not all loving and/or all powerful. You are misrepresenting my position. I never made that argument. Evidently, either you did NOT fully digest the information, I presented or you have resorted to a strawman. I'd say both! You have created a false argument, for me -- which you attack. I'm not arguing that god allows suffering -- I'm arguing that the god-character of the bible sadistically causes suffering. You need to make the connection between suffering and love. You have not done this. No -- ALL I have to do is simply point out ALL the sick sadistic ways the fictional character in the bible (god) causes people to suffer in vile, reprehensible ways. To simply assume that God's love will simply protect you from suffering, is simplistic, and a bad reading of Scripture. Again, I NEVER made that argument. Strawman on your part -- bad form. God -- the fictional character in the bible -- caused innocent babies and children to suffer. God's active love for the planet was demonstrated through the crucifixion of his Son, (who happens to be God) The Crucified God endured the suffering of this life, and then promised those who believed relief in the resurrection. Outlandish unsupported claims are inadmissible. Oh yes -- a father who would allow his own son to be tortured and brutally murdered is a psychotic monster. Please provide objective evidence that Jesus is the crucified, resurrected son of god, savior of mankind, as opposed to a piece of fiction, written over a hundred years, based on perhaps a fallible human prophet an/or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths -- that you pathetically cling to as a reality. This is not a simple dualistic conception as some may accuse, we are empowered to function and discover cures and the like...but at the end of the day...your belief or dis-belief in God has done NOTHING to ease your pain. Let's assume for the moment that God does not exist. Children around the world are still suffering. You have your own quarrels. You are still suffering. Your pain hasn't stopped because you stopped believing in God. Congratulations...now you're angry at a God that may not exist...and you don't even have a justification for being angry anymore. Shit, the fact that you are alive is a random oddity. Why should your emotions be anything but more of the same? Loquacious strawman! You do realize, you have NOT -- in the least -- refuted my actual argument? Your moral categories need work. To call something evil is to acknowledge that there is a privation (lack of) good, where there OUGHT be good. If moral OUGHTS do not exist, then you cannot call anything evil. You can't call the God of the Bible revolting and loathsome, because you have no objective foundation for your moral category. The objective foundation is found in the bible itself. The bible describes god as an evil character who either commands or causes the suffering of children and babies. Why should he be good? If there is a living god I do NOT know if he is good or bad -- nor do you. But the bible clearly portrays this fictional character as being evil and a ruthless genocidal maniac who either commands or causes the the egregious suffering of children and babies. I'm sorry that this post will offend, but calling God a vicious tyrant is pretty philosophically invalid. I'm calling the god-character from the bible an evil vicious genocidal tyrant who causes children and babies to horribly suffer, which is a perfectly valid description -- one you, evidently, can NOT argue against, as evidenced by your lame strawman effort. Now will you refute the actual details of my arguments or will you continue to diverge and offer bullshit fallacious arguments? --S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColorMixer Posted March 24, 2010 Author Share Posted March 24, 2010 This thread seems to have been derailed. Perhaps we should start/continue a debate elsewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts