Is God evil?

[Frozenwolf150]

No, God isn't evil, because the God of the bible does not exist. The people who wrote parts of the bible however certainly were, especially by modern standards of morality. I would argue that in this case, atheists are actually being more equitable to God than bible literalists are, because atheists are not the ones conflating biblical atrocities with the will and word of God, or putting these words in God's mouth.

It was in the name of Christianity that Martin Luther King preached equality between blacks and whites, the Christians who first opposed the Nazis while the atheists cowered in their holes, the same brave Christians who are taught to be willing to die on a cross for the sake of their ideal- the basic principality of which is Truth.

The institution of slavery, which persisted for 300 years, was frequently supported in the name of Christianity, with reference to biblical verses for slaves to obey their earthly masters. It was the Soviets (whom many apologists are quick to point out were atheistic as a slam against atheism) who killed 4 out of 5 Nazis for the Allies. Also, I don't see how worshiping the way Jesus died, while completely ignoring what he taught while he was alive, is a tenet of your religion to brag about.

Edit: Yeah, the Soviets often made the Nutzies look like boy scouts, raping and pillaging the land, shooting their own soldiers in the back, and committing many atrocities of their own. But it's just as ridiculous to give Christianity credit for stopping Nazi Germany.

A God who dies for the heresy of heathens rather than suffering you atheists (who insult him even now) to die is not evil, but if anything ridiculously merciful, and the example of his followers shows it.

No, atheists do not believe in God, so atheists are attacking an idea or concept, not insulting an actual being.

You say you believe there is no God- then where does the evil in the world come from? The only answer can be mankind. In this case, then, according to your desire to "hunt down and destroy the being responsible", you should go out right now with a shotgun and shoot everyone dead.

There are so many problems with this, I don't even know where to begin. I hope you realize that good and evil is a line drawn down the middle of each one of us, and that the problem of evil is not as simple as that.

 

[Radrook]

Amazing how they extrapolate from this little corner of the universe to everything that might exist. Wow! Talk about a BIG leap of blind faith! And that from self proclaimed adherents to skepticism. Double standards do come in handy-don't they? But being the modus operandi of the believers in the "Billions of Happy Accidents theory" what can we expect?.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Amazing how they extrapolate from this little corner of the universe to everything that might exist. Wow! Talk about a BIG leap of blind faith! And that from self proclaimed adherents to skepticism. Double standards do come in handy-don't they?

Is that like how religious fundamentalists, ever so humble, ever so rational, assume that the God they believe in, based on their primitive limited perspective on Earth, must be the creator and ruler of the entire universe? Or maybe it's like how believers argue that the founders of the Israelite tribe must be the ancestors of all of humanity, that the scripture of one ancient tribe must be a universal truth that applies to everyone, or that their religious model of justice based on coercion and negative reinforcement must be the universal standard of morality.

ETA: Oh, and I just felt like adding for no apparent reason, and with no supporting evidence, that it's a well known fact that Jehovah's Witnesses suffer from a condition known as cranial-rectal inversion, or CRI. So when they're sitting in front of their computers, if all of their digested food suddenly comes spewing out of their mouths at once, arranging itself into a vague semblance of barely coherent words, it's to be expected and understandable.

 

[Radrook]

Gods not evil, man is, what is so hard to understand?
Your alive aren't you?

Hi Edge! The problem is that they like to make a mess of things and then blame someone else. Its a human tradition going back to the start. Adam blamed God and his wife. Eve blamed the serpent.

Radrook has stated and is absolutely correct. I never seen so many that are blind Rad, unbelivable!

The ridiculous arguments used to justify that blindness are even more unbelievable. Someone should collect these as examples of irrationality for cogent reasoning courses.. There are some real gems to be found here.

 

[bobrayner]

Amazing how they extrapolate from this little corner of the universe to everything that might exist. Wow! Talk about a BIG leap of blind faith! And that from self proclaimed adherents to skepticism.

The available evidence is the best we have to go on. There is actually quite a lot of evidence.

It's a lot better than believing in an old book of myths which is neither internally consistent nor consistent with the available evidence.

Double standards do come in handy-don't they?

Quite.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Funny how the evidence being posted is mostly directly from the Bible. Isn't that the place Bible believers say we should get the evidence from?

I could say the world is full of pain and sorrow so if their was a god he/she would be evil for letting it exist. That might be lacking evidence. But using the Bible as the evidence, that is the same evidence supposedly supporting the existence of God.

 

[tsig]

I decided to return to your original source, SG. What we find there is a literal and fundamentalist interpretation of a version of Hosea. Remember, you picked several quotes from that source to bolster a claim that the Bible is misogynistic (which it may very well be).

My counterclaim is that plucking quotes in a literal way out of a centuries old book to prove that misogyny existed isn't very helpful. Not only has this been done long ago and simply repeated as an exercise in SAB, but your source's cherry-picking falls into the same traps that fundamentalists do by misunderstanding the meaning of (just for one) the Book of Hosea.

I provided you with a context for understanding those quotes. The SAB, to its discredit, does not. There is no mention of the fall of the Northern Kingdom, nor of the siege of Samaria by the Assyrians, nor of the lyrical methods of "prophecies" in ancient writings, nor much of anything you wouldn't find in a fundamentalist Christian pamphlet.

As much as you, I dislike the deployment of Biblical literature to bolster absurd claims about the status of women. More than you, obviously, I deplore the literal interpretation of any "sacred text" as is done both by religious fundamentalists and the SAB.

Your definition of cherry-picking seems to be "you don't agree with me".

How are we to tell when a passage is allegory or a matter of salvation?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

stilicho - Why have you wasted so much of your life accumulating mounds of information about such a silly topic?

I suppose everyone has their enthusiasms, and you're surely entitled to spend your time as you choose, but this? What a shame.

I'm interested in a wide variety of things, including the development of the religous beliefs of the ancient Greeks. They were wrong, of course, but interesting, and they weren't tacky like the xians.

Drop the christian crap - one of the major embarrassments of mankind, and not worthy of a moment of a person's time.

I have a completely contrary view. I think that knowing these sorts of details about the Bible (or the Book of Mormon, or astrology, or homeopathy) is at least as interesting and valuable as anything else people do purely for recreation. I don't think skeptics are obliged to know the details of patently silly belief systems, but it can be useful and fun to study them.

If you can't discuss these sorts of topics with enough intellectual detachment to avoid insulting posters who find the topic interesting there are plenty of other things you can do with your time besides posting here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm all for knowing a lot about the details in the Bible. I know quite a bit about what is in it. What makes me agree with Complexity is the level of investigation of the supposed meaning of the Biblical texts stilicho is professing. If one wanted to study theists, fine. If one was interested in the culture of the day, fine. But we have stilicho professing atheism (or agnosticism) while finding great meaning in the texts. That one is hard to assess given just what was posted here.

I await stilicho's further comments.

 

[Radrook]

Notice how they bring in a supposed old book of myths is imediately mentioned ? That's another anti ID tactic. Mindlessly categorizing all arguments under the same lable. This gets even better Edge. It's a jack-in the box reaction which saves a lot of unpleasant thinking effort. But it gets better Edge -just watch.

BTW

I find belief in ID preferable to a belief in billions of happy go lucky accidents. But then again who needs logic when such an abracadabra idea is at their disposal?

 

[Mashuna]

That's another anti ID tactic. Mindlessly categorizing all arguments under the same lable.

Nearly. In fact it's categorising all mindless arguments under the same label.

 

[RobRoy]

I have a completely contrary view. I think that knowing these sorts of details about the Bible (or the Book of Mormon, or astrology, or homeopathy) is at least as interesting and valuable as anything else people do purely for recreation. I don't think skeptics are obliged to know the details of patently silly belief systems, but it can be useful and fun to study them.

If you can't discuss these sorts of topics with enough intellectual detachment to avoid insulting posters who find the topic interesting there are plenty of other things you can do with your time besides posting here.

 

[edge]

Notice how they bring in a supposed old book of myths is imediately mentioned ? That's another anti ID tactic. Mindlessly categorizing all arguments under the same lable. This gets even better Edge. It's a jack-in the box reaction which saves a lot of unpleasant thinking effort. But it gets better Edge -just watch.

BTW

I find belief in ID preferable to a belief in billions of happy go lucky accidents. But then again who needs logic when such an abracadabra idea is at their disposal?

I have to work now so I'll be back later as I haven't answered them yet.
Yep it's funny how they like to polish tu**s.....which is kind of useless.

 

[Complexity]

I have a completely contrary view. I think that knowing these sorts of details about the Bible (or the Book of Mormon, or astrology, or homeopathy) is at least as interesting and valuable as anything else people do purely for recreation. I don't think skeptics are obliged to know the details of patently silly belief systems, but it can be useful and fun to study them.

If you can't discuss these sorts of topics with enough intellectual detachment to avoid insulting posters who find the topic interesting there are plenty of other things you can do with your time besides posting here.

We'll just have to disagree, Kevin. I think that the types of posts that I criticized are just enabling the cretins to continue undissuaded in their delusions.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Notice how they bring in a supposed old book of myths is imediately mentioned ? That's another anti ID tactic. Mindlessly categorizing all arguments under the same lable. This gets even better Edge. It's a jack-in the box reaction which saves a lot of unpleasant thinking effort. But it gets better Edge -just watch.

Arguments that have long since been logically refuted or have no evidence to back them up certainly deserve to be "labled" false. If there were any actual arguments presented (and your regurgitated repetitious apologetics do not count as arguments) then they could be addressed. But I suppose hurling petulant insults at long range saves a lot of unpleasant thinking effort, doesn't it?

BTW

I find belief in ID preferable to a belief in billions of happy go lucky accidents. But then again who needs logic when such an abracadabra idea is at their disposal?

I've asked cdesign proponentsists repeatedly to propose a mechanism for design and a method by which it could be scientifically tested. Do you have one or not? Judging from your evasive argumentation, I would guess not. Your use of the words "luck" and "accident" to attack evolutionary biology demonstrates a total lack of understanding of even the most rudimentary concepts involved.

ID is circular reasoning, and therefore commits one of the most basic logical fallacies. Even if I were to assume for the sake of argument that evolution is 100% false, so what? Your ideas still don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[edge]

So god is good; but people created by god, subject to rules chosen by god, surrounded by god, who have no free will with respect to god... they're evil. And god's going to punish them. But God is good. Right?

me;
You are evil when you do evil and do you think that he is going to allow that to be next to him on the other side?
Would you let a murderer live in your house?

You:
No. Radrook gave us lines of superstitious waffle that has no grounding in the real world:

Me: lets see:

And the only ones who would believe that statement to be true are those who blindly accept anything anti-biblical without checking to see if it's accurate or not. Anyone having a basic knowledge of scripture knows that this world wasn't created as is by God but is the inevitable result of an angelic [Satanic, Demonic] and a human rebellion against God.

It seems it is still going on in here and this is the basis of Genesis, as remembered and told.

You:
Where's the evidence?
Me: I assume you mean about this part,

inevitable result of an angelic[Satanic, Demonic] and a human rebellion against God.

"This forum is evidence, the skeptic bible or satin babbal is two".

You:
What, blind because we base our opinions on what's in the real world rather than a book of old myths?

Me:
Your vision of the real universes stops at this world and no other information can or will penetrate your wall that you built.
Let me remind you about the myths that have been proven.
Jericho, Sodom and Gomorra, there are about; I don’t know, twenty other archeological finds.
One recent is the place of the crossing of the red sea from the Exodus of the Hebrews, the spot at Golgotha where the cross was placed for the crucifixion of Jesus.



Non biblical Troy comes to mind and many others that have been discovered so I wouldn’t label all as myth.

You:
Oh, if only god could have provided some evidence so that skeptics might believe in him. Supposedly he created the entire universe and every soul in it, but didn't leave a fingerprint. Supposedly this beneficial god created all kinds of natural disasters and atrocities but it's All Part Of A Bigger Plan. Supposedly this moral god wants us to to respect the barbarism of the bible and follow a set of utterly contradictory rules.

Me:
Try to really believe first as written you'll get your evidence then, but not before that's the rule, oh ya you don't follow.
Life is a finger print the universe is the mind of God in a sense bigger than a finger print.


You:
Supposedly, god listens when you ask him nicely; but prayers have gone unanswered over and over again.

Me:
By who skeptics?
Read above, even believers prayers aren’t all answered, faith is like prayer when a believer has a major problem and in your mind you think like this:
I could pray for it but I have faith that God/Jesus will provide in the most difficult situation.
As far as you can tell there is no way out of a bad situation and then all of a sudden because of faith alone an answer comes in the form of money for food for instance, a way out, that presents itself from seemingly no where, it makes you believe stronger and you give credit where credit is due by thanking God for the relief and praise the lord, because it is the only obvious intervention that can possibly explain it, so you suffer for the moment, with a conclusion that’s undeniably intervention by God, thanks and praise gets more done than you would believe.
It is known practices that get you to the goal you seek, but you refuse to seek so you don’t see you don’t find.
The reason I say this is because I have been in that dead end path you all are caught up in, been there done that, so I give it to Jesus, in my mind I say Jesus it is in your hands.
No Church building is necessary no pope is needed; only belief, you’ll be surprised.


Skepticism in the face of all this isn't willful blindness; it's a wholly rational response.

See this is what I don't get you say rational, so try the irrational if you have to label it.

I do know you are hunger for proof but that has to be witnessed by belief not by mockery.

Accept, believe, and then ask, those are the rules if you can't get by the first step your doomed to be where you are with no acknowledgement by God; no proof, no light no relieve.

What I see here is pride is getting in your way.
So do it under cover then come out of your closet when you see proof of God in your life. I see it everyday, I recognize since I was a child and nothing can change that till the day I die and I will still believe.



As a believer you'll see proof of the other side, (devil) also, as he has you,… you won’t see proof of him either.
He is after believers to make them fall we see that too, but you won't see proof of that, he has you already..

His grip is weak.

Believers are like children learning to walk, we fall but we always get back up, none are perfect not me either and all fall short compared to the glory of God.

You got to have that base to stand on.
One-day wisdom will take completely over in all, so that all are saved.
But you got to have that base.

 

[Complexity]

Edge - Which came first: silly beliefs about global warming, or silly beliefs about religion?

I'm guessing religion - I've found that an infestation of religion tends to really muck up the immune response to further woo while coopting the memetic immune system and directing it against reason. Sort of an autoimmune response - terribly self destructive.

I wouldn't wish religion on my worst enemy.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Accept, believe, and then ask, those are the rules if you can't get by the first step your doomed to be where you are with no acknowledgement by God; no proof, no light no relieve.

Okay, so the deal is we accept, then we believe, then we ask, and then we get proper answers?

Two problems. Firstly there are plenty of ex-believers around here who never got their proper answers. So I don't think that can be how it works.

Secondly, the answers you guys get don't seem to make any sense except to people who are already believers. So the real progression is accept, believe, ask, and then get ridiculous answers that only people already committed to belief can accept.

How is that any different to the process people who believe in UFO abductions and Bigfoot use? They accept, they believe, they "ask questions", they come up with dumb answers which nobody who wasn't already a committed Bigfoot kook could ever take seriously, and everyone laughs at them.

 

[Complexity]

Accept, believe, and then ask, those are the rules if you can't get by the first step your doomed to be where you are with no acknowledgement by God; no proof, no light no relieve.

What utter nonsense.

I shall remain god-free and leave you to your infestation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

......

BTW

I find belief in ID preferable to a belief in billions of happy go lucky accidents. But then again who needs logic when such an abracadabra idea is at their disposal?

Indeed, who needs logic when such an abracadabra a god magic idea is at their disposal?

I don't suppose it has dawned on you that the random mutation natural selection theory can be observed while the intelligent designer theory is just another way of saying, "abracadabra and it appeared".