Asimov Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Definitions: God: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent entity sovereign over everything and creator of the universe. Evil: That which goes against Gods Will. Relativistically speaking, one can say that God is evil...but it isn't a valid objective argument to say that God is evil. Premise: 1. God is Omnibenevolent. 2. Everything that God does is good. C: 1. Anything that God causes or does is a good thing. 2. Anyone who argues that God is omnibenevolent yet evil is shooting themselves in the foot. The Bible makes no actual mention that God is omnibenevolent anyways, so stop whining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth C Triggs Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Heh, myself, I happen to think this god, if it exists, is pretty damn evil. The whole eternal collective punishment thing—if that ain't evil I don't know what is. -Seth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick5 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Well, the bible does say that does both good AND evil. So "evil" can not be defined as going against god's will. In fact, when you read the bible it's obvious that god is mostly evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 Heh, myself, I happen to think this god, if it exists, is pretty damn evil. The whole eternal collective punishment thing—if that ain't evil I don't know what is. -Seth If you redefine evil according to my premise, then sure. As it stands, by definition, God cannot be evil. Well, the bible does say that does both good AND evil. So "evil" can not be defined as going against god's will. In fact, when you read the bible it's obvious that god is mostly evil. Uh, no it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick5 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Yes it does. And he repented too. And God sent an angle into Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the Lord beheld, and HE REPENTED HIM OF THE EVIL, and said to the angel that destroyed, "It is enough, stay now thine hand." And the angel of the Lord stood by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil I vaguely remember some other ones too but I can't really find them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JP Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Nick, your signature bothers me. I know this is an Ex-Christian forum, but that's pushing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick5 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I don't see how it could bother you. Even amy mary likes it... Is it because it's too big? If yes, I can reduce it. EDIT I did. Better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JP Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 I do like that it's smaller. But the content still bothers me. But it's my deal so don't worry about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 Yes it does. And he repented too. And God sent an angle into Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the Lord beheld, and HE REPENTED HIM OF THE EVIL, and said to the angel that destroyed, "It is enough, stay now thine hand." And the angel of the Lord stood by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil I vaguely remember some other ones too but I can't really find them. That's a pretty big reach there, nick. The first verse speaks of him being sorry for the destruction he rained upon the people of Israel and Jerusalem because of David's sin. Even David admitted that it was he who did the evil deed that resulted in the destruction of the land. In context to the passages 14-16, they use evil twice. The first time the context is one of calamity or destruction, which God was sorry for doing. The second time it is of a wrongdoing or misdeed. The NEXT passage you cited again has to do with destruction, calamitous events. You can even see the polarizations. Light and dark, peace and calamity. What's the opposite of evil? Good. This verse has no connection to the evil as defined by a wrongdoing or misdeed or the committment of a sin. I don't see how it could bother you. Even amy mary likes it...Is it because it's too big? If yes, I can reduce it. Yea dude, but just because some retards eat poop and seem to enjoy it doesn't mean we all should. It's too graphic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick5 Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Well, the fact that god says he's sorry about something he did... it shows that he somehow doesn't approve of those things anymore... and if he doesn't approve of them, they,re against god right? Anyways, in real life, evil is subjective. Throwing people into a huge lake of fire is pretty evil, thank you (in my opinion of course). And since god does that, I can't say being evil is going against god's will. Besides, killing is a sin, so if sin is evil, then god's evil too, since he sinned. Yea dude, but just because some retards eat poop and seem to enjoy it doesn't mean we all should.It's too graphic. Oh come on, are you all sissies? Ok then, I'll change it soon. I thought it would be funny and offend a few christians, but whatever. I can find something else that can do the job just as nicely. Gee, I thought it would make christians upset, but it turns out they're the ones who liked it... There, better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 Well, the fact that god says he's sorry about something he did... it shows that he somehow doesn't approve of those things anymore... and if he doesn't approve of them, they,re against god right? How does that follow, nick? He realised his punishment was excessive and told the angel that was enough destruction for them. Anyways, in real life, evil is subjective. Throwing people into a huge lake of fire is pretty evil, thank you (in my opinion of course). And since god does that, I can't say being evil is going against god's will. That's a pretty fucking retarded argument nick. If we're going to deal in a hypothetical mindset then suddenly switching it to "real life" and declaring victory is just as dishonest as any Christian apologetics you rant about. Besides, subjective morality is internally incoherent. I declared my definitions as they pertained to the argument. Changing them is dishonest as well. Besides, killing is a sin, so if sin is evil, then god's evil too, since he sinned. You have got to be the first 1611 KJV only Atheist I've ever seen. Jesus fucking Christ... Oh come on, are you all sissies? Ok then, I'll change it soon. I thought it would be funny and offend a few christians, but whatever. I can find something else that can do the job just as nicely. Gee, I thought it would make christians upset, but it turns out they're the ones who liked it... There, better? I don't think graphical representations of someone being senselessly tortured is funny at all. And you're the one who keeps ranting about God being evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick5 Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 How does that follow, nick? He realised his punishment was excessive and told the angel that was enough destruction for them. Well yeah, that means he realized he did something wrong. He disagrees whith his past judgement. His past judgement goes against god's current will. Therefore god's past judgement was evil. It,s very simple. Also, it contradicts the idea that god is all knowing. If he was all knowing he wouldve known it in advance and there would not have been any need to change his mind. It also shows his will and decisions are not perfect. If they were he'd never have to change them. That's a pretty fucking retarded argument nick. If we're going to deal in a hypothetical mindset then suddenly switching it to "real life" and declaring victory is just as dishonest as any Christian apologetics you rant about. No, it's not. I was pretending that christianity was real. You have got to be the first 1611 KJV only Atheist I've ever seen. Murdering, killing, taking a human life, it doesn't matter how you call it. It's all the same. I don't think graphical representations of someone being senselessly tortured is funny at all. And you're the one who keeps ranting about God being evil? It's funny for many reasons. 1. It shows just how dishonest christians are for supporting their doctrine while at the same time being disgusted by a drawing that illustrates an important part of it. Surely you see the irony in that. It's hilarious. 2. It's not real. If I had a real photo of a baby being tortured then yeah I'd agree with you. But it's a cartoon. 3. Most important of all, it upsets christians and make them angry. I love that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkmate Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 If Nick's current picture is too much for the sensibilities, maybe something else from the bible will suffice? Something like this...? 2 Kings 2:23 And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. 25 And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria. Great bed time story! Although one has to wonder: How did two bears kill 42 children? Wouldn't you think SOME of the kids would have scampered away while the bears were busy chewing on the others? I suppose God must have prevented them from running away, just as he prevented the sun from moving during Joshua's battle. What a guy, that Jehovah! He thinks of everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 How does that follow, nick? He realised his punishment was excessive and told the angel that was enough destruction for them. Well yeah, that means he realized he did something wrong. He disagrees whith his past judgement. His past judgement goes against god's current will. Therefore god's past judgement was evil. It,s very simple. Also, it contradicts the idea that god is all knowing. If he was all knowing he wouldve known it in advance and there would not have been any need to change his mind. It also shows his will and decisions are not perfect. If they were he'd never have to change them. First off, my original argument had nothing to do with Christianity, so I don't even know why I'm arguing it. Second off, I did state in my OP that the Bible makes no mention that God is omnibenevolent, so again, I wasn't arguing from a christian standpoint. As it is, you so far have no demonstrated that my argument is flawed, nick. You just diverted the topic to one of Christianity to fuel your obsession. Baby Picture I wasn't talking about the baby picture. I have my complaints about it, but not relevant to the content of the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick5 Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 You just diverted the topic to one of Christianity to fuel your obsession. No, I have not. This is ex christian, so it was natural to think that you were talking about the christian god. If it wasn't, you should have said so. The confusion originates from you and you alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 You just diverted the topic to one of Christianity to fuel your obsession. No, I have not. This is ex christian, so it was natural to think that you were talking about the christian god. If it wasn't, you should have said so. The confusion originates from you and you alone. God: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent entity sovereign over everything and creator of the universe. My definition in my argument. Where does it say "Yahweh" or "Christianity"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick5 Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 I see some of us here have reading problems. Let me repeat. No, I have not. This is ex christian, so it was natural to think that you were talking about the christian god. If it wasn't, you should have said so.The confusion originates from you and you alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 The One God, if it existed, would not be evil. It would be amoral. Morality is a behavioral adaptation of social beings that use reciprocity as a survival strategy. To be a social being there must be more than one in the class. Since there is only one "One God" there is no reason for it to be moral, just like there is no reason for it to have a gender. Therefore it must be amoral since it does not need reciprocity to exist. Therefore none of its behaviors would be either moral or immoral, good or evil. In addition it would not love; it would not have compassion; it would not have hate, or any other emotion that motivates moral behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 First, I assume we're talking about the Christian god. If we are, he is neither good nor evil, since he doesn't exist. I personally don't think that any sentient being could be purely good or purely evil anyway. Even Saddam probably has a smidgeon of good buried somewhere really, really, really, really, really deep, which he tries to forget exists, and I've heard bad things about Mother Theresa. But for something to be good or evil or both, it logically has to exist first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 25, 2006 Author Share Posted June 25, 2006 I see some of us here have reading problems. Let me repeat. No, I have not. This is ex christian, so it was natural to think that you were talking about the christian god. If it wasn't, you should have said so.The confusion originates from you and you alone. I see some of us here need to take their head out of their assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPillAddict Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 You just diverted the topic to one of Christianity to fuel your obsession. No, I have not. This is ex christian, so it was natural to think that you were talking about the christian god. If it wasn't, you should have said so. The confusion originates from you and you alone. God: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent entity sovereign over everything and creator of the universe. My definition in my argument. Where does it say "Yahweh" or "Christianity"? Your definition is that of the christian bible God, though. You definitely arent talking about Egyptian Gods or Greek Gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 God: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent entity sovereign over everything and creator of the universe. My definition in my argument. Where does it say "Yahweh" or "Christianity"? Your definition is that of the christian bible God, though. You definitely arent talking about Egyptian Gods or Greek Gods. Have to agree there; I think part of the confusion some people are having here is they read the attributes usually ascribed to one of the Abrahamic gods, when to be technical and honest, Asimov never specified the Abrahamic deities. The listed attributes certainly do not apply to most pre-Xian gods. To me, Asimov sounds more like he is describing the Classical Deist view of "God" unless I am mistaken... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I don't think the classical Deist is viewing God that way either, it's definitely the fundamentalist (or maybe RCC) Christian God view that have the "omni" attributes. Only monotheism really have the concept of omnipotence. (I think) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I don't think the classical Deist is viewing God that way either, it's definitely the fundamentalist (or maybe RCC) Christian God view that have the "omni" attributes. Coming from a one-time Classical Deist, that's the view Thomas Paine and others used to put forth when they wrestled with their concepts of "God" after leaving Xianity. It was still commonplace to view "God" as an omni-god back then, if memory serves. Dismantling the omni-traits came later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Okay. I have to check Age of Reason again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts