Answer to the Problem of Evil

[Craig4]

No, there he is a servant directly commissioned by God. It's just like the angels of death. Or doomsday workers.

Otherwise, nobody can slap anybody for their faith:


https://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php?topic=3774.0

You shouldn't believe in gods, Islam, your prophet. Everything you believe is a lie. There are no gods. Mohamed was a corrupt trader and pervert who created a religion to help satisfy his own twisted sexual desires.

Where's your made up god's "servant" now?

And what kind of a stupid dick head would tell someone not to drink water during the day if a desert? That's just stupid. Only an idiot or a complete ass would come up with something as stupid as Ramadan.

 

[Darat]

No, there he is a servant directly commissioned by God. It's just like the angels of death. Or doomsday workers.

Otherwise, nobody can slap anybody for their faith:


https://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php?topic=3774.0

Again:

My Turkish article translated with machine:

https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9611966.0

Peace

I was bored so...

"....his world is the realm of testing, of confronting oneself, and it is also the place where some small punishments or rewards begin to be offered. And every adversity or happiness that happens in this world functions both as a test and as a way of giving the person what they deserve. ..."​

Three year old girl, raped multiple times and beheaded: https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/s...ape-and-beheading-of-3-year-old-girl-in-india

What lesson was she learning, what testing was she undergoing, how did she deserve to be raped and killed?

 

[sackett]

Good and evil are concepts. Concepts exist inside people's braincases -- literally. They exist nowhere else.

Religion is a mass of concepts. Where does it exist? Why, it's all in your head. And nowhere else.

 

[aleCcowaN]

You answered nothing.

You don't understand Emre, you infidel!

He posts here a link to another post of his nobody is paying attention to and whatever you ask or challenge him he'll post a link to some other random post of his nobody is reading. He's the Illuminatuh and whatever he writes would enlighten you.

Talk about fishes and loaves. It's the multiplication of nothing ... I mean, Allah (nagilla Allah)

 

[aleCcowaN]

...

And what kind of a stupid dick head would tell someone not to drink water during the day if a desert? That's just stupid. Only an idiot or a complete ass would come up with something as stupid as Ramadan.

It's just another example of how the god virus work, as explained by Darrel Ray in his book: You take a basic human need and make it something controlled or forbidden by religion. People will break the rule, feel guilty and come back to the religion as it provides the way to assuage the guilt.

The Guilt Cycle. Sex, food and drink are the most common targets. You have religions that regulate pork and shellfish and not that much sex and others that allow you to gobble up with pork and shellfish provided you only have heterosexual intercourse with the expressed purpose of conceiving new little believers.

Emre's god virus is one of the nastiest, most pandemicky ones in existence. And Emre loves to be a vector and spread it, for example by opening nonsensical threads and answering any criticism by linking more nonsensical posts of his.

 

[bruto]

No, there he is a servant directly commissioned by God. It's just like the angels of death. Or doomsday workers.

Otherwise, nobody can slap anybody for their faith:


https://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php?topic=3774.0

So when a mother drowns her children because she said god told her to do it, how does our all wise and clever god go about letting people know whether she's an angel or a nut?

Do the angels of death wear funny hats or badges or something?

There is of course one remaining problem. Let us briefly stipulate that there really is a god, and that he really is smart and good and all those other goddish things that a proper god must be. We are still left with a world of hurt, suffering, poverty, injustice, war and talk radio. This god may have a heart of gold and be the sweetest god there is, but he's woefully inefficient. We can concede all sorts of unknown qualities to our unknown god, but one it's hard to fit in is competence.

 

[Norman Alexander]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus

And the sad? amazing? amusing? thing is that Epicurus figured this out over 2000 years ago and idiots have been missing the point ever since.

 

[Thor 2]

And the sad? amazing? amusing? thing is that Epicurus figured this out over 2000 years ago and idiots have been missing the point ever since.

You never get anywhere with logic when talking to the faithful.

 

[acbytesla]

The problem with evil is that it is made up crap by awful people. What is sad is some people are so gullible that when they are served up a **** sandwich, they eat it up.

 

[theprestige]

The problem with evil is that it is made up crap by awful people. What is sad is some people are so gullible that when they are served up a **** sandwich, they eat it up.

Of course.

Raping a child to death is not evil. It is, at worst inconvenient. In the sense that your community will take it ill, and search for the perpetrator, and make your life unpleasant if they find out it's you that did it. But evil? No such thing. The kid's life had no moral value. The community's moral outrage is down to some **** sandwich mythology their gullible asses were quick to gobble up.

Evil is a myth. Murder is a hoax perpetrated by people who just want to brainwash you into leaving them alone. Rape likewise. The right to life is a (sometimes) convenient fiction. The right to property even more so. Anyone taking these things away from you isn't committing any kind of evil act. The only sin they might be committing - if you even believe in sin at all - is the sin of risking their self interest for too little reward.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

No, there he is a servant directly commissioned by God. It's just like the angels of death. Or doomsday workers.

Otherwise, nobody can slap anybody for their faith:


https://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php?topic=3774.0

Who brought up slapping?

Your post does nothing to counter the fact that it's okay to kill someone because they might cause someone to disbelieve. Not will, did, or had, but might.

I'm not going to go to all the sites that you post. I went to one and that's more than enough.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Of course.

Raping a child to death is not evil. It is, at worst inconvenient. In the sense that your community will take it ill, and search for the perpetrator, and make your life unpleasant if they find out it's you that did it. But evil? No such thing. The kid's life had no moral value. The community's moral outrage is down to some **** sandwich mythology their gullible asses were quick to gobble up.

Evil is a myth. Murder is a hoax perpetrated by people who just want to brainwash you into leaving them alone. Rape likewise. The right to life is a (sometimes) convenient fiction. The right to property even more so. Anyone taking these things away from you isn't committing any kind of evil act. The only sin they might be committing - if you even believe in sin at all - is the sin of risking their self interest for too little reward.

Evil is not a myth, but it is a human construct. You take an extreme example to try and use appeal to emotion, but is eating your own children inherently evil?
It happens with surprising regularity in the animal world.
Even something like cannibalism is not considered evil by all humans.

Objective evil however does not exist. That does not mean as a society we should abandon our morals, we worked hard at setting those. But it is a human and thus flexible idea, not a god given permanent fixture.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[acbytesla]

Evil is not a myth, but it is a human construct. You take an extreme example to try and use appeal to emotion, but is eating your own children inherently evil?
It happens with surprising regularity in the animal world.
Even something like cannibalism is not considered evil by all humans.

Objective evil however does not exist. That does not mean as a society we should abandon our morals, we worked hard at setting those. But it is a human and thus flexible idea, not a god given permanent fixture.

Morals are a human construct as well. Evil is not something related to a superstitious mythical being. I see it as something morally obscene and objectionable. But that is my definition. Evil and morals are human constructs.

 

[GDon]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus

And the sad? amazing? amusing? thing is that Epicurus figured this out over 2000 years ago and idiots have been missing the point ever since.

But if, as some atheists maintain, there is no such thing as objective evil - i.e. if "evil" is just a human subjective construction - then why is God malevolent if He doesn't prevent it?

Doesn't it become "If God does something I don't like, God is malevolent"?

And doesn't that eventually resolve to "If YOU do something I don't like, you are malevolent"?

 

[bruto]

But if, as some atheists maintain, there is no such thing as objective evil - i.e. if "evil" is just a human subjective construction - then why is God malevolent if He doesn't prevent it?

Doesn't it become "If God does something I don't like, God is malevolent"?

And doesn't that eventually resolve to "If YOU do something I don't like, you are malevolent"?

But most if not all theists insist that their god is good, and many outline evils that are anathema to that god, with scriptures and such that emphasize the objective reality of good and evil.

We atheists can say there's no such thing as objective evil, but theists have to eat their own dogfood.

 

[8enotto]

Dark needs light to be properly defined. One is the extreme of the other.

Good demands an extreme opposite if good is very powerful like a god. ( But always a tad weaker and later evil being easily defeated by billions of believers over millennia.)
Johnny beat the devil in Georgia by just playing a fiddle after all.

Good like a dog is the difference of not smegging on the carpet or doing so frequently. Not very extreme. You just keep the messy one outside after it becomes irritating.

Believers created an all powerful and seeing good god/gods and then later made him/them much harder to define. Evil evolved along with him from basically disobedience to a entire realm of demons and such tempting us at every turn.
Depending on each separate faith of course.

You can't have Supergod vs Bart Simpson and keep him valid long.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

But if, as some atheists maintain, there is no such thing as objective evil - i.e. if "evil" is just a human subjective construction - then why is God malevolent if He doesn't prevent it?

Doesn't it become "If God does something I don't like, God is malevolent"?

And doesn't that eventually resolve to "If YOU do something I don't like, you are malevolent"?

Because atheists do not assume there is an all powerful being that objectively sets what is right and wrong and then allows the wrong to happen anyway.

 

[aleCcowaN]

But if, as some atheists maintain, there is no such thing as objective evil - i.e. if "evil" is just a human subjective construction - then why is God malevolent if He doesn't prevent it?

<slippery slope snipped>

Adding to what bruto said, malevolence is the conclusion of judging the god character in the bible/quran as if it were a fellow man.

But you put there a non sequitur with backflips and fireworks not oftenly seen: "if evil is subjective why godcharacter is considered to be evil under some subjective definitions of evil".

It's like you imagined the godcharacter to be real and then progenitor of objective moral thus unreachable by subjectivities coming from its subjects. What a funny thing to think.

Are unicorns and pixies real? You should provide evidence that some godthing is real before discussing how it should be morally judged.