(June 26, 2011 at 5:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: From my world view I can apply the same to you

Don't be a muppet. You can't just change definitions of words to suit yourself. Willfully ignorant moron isn't defined as a genius, brilliant military leader is it?

(June 21, 2011 at 8:13 am)Napoleon Wrote: Kudos for asking questions!

Now if only every religious person did the same rather than blindly following like sheep we might actually be getting somewhere.

i did now im an agnostic haha

(June 27, 2011 at 1:31 pm)bbrettle Wrote:

(June 21, 2011 at 8:13 am)Napoleon Wrote: Kudos for asking questions!

Now if only every religious person did the same rather than blindly following like sheep we might actually be getting somewhere.

i did now im an agnostic haha

I did too haha, and it wasn't before long that i realized how stupid it all seemed.

(June 21, 2011 at 3:41 am)TheYoungAtheist Wrote: It's really just as simple as proposing the question "Why?" Such as: When "god" was making us, WHY would he even implant the ability to be violent? WHY even create such a thing as war, poverty, murder, rape, etc. ?? WHY sacrifice your son to cleanse a retched people, when you could've just created a perfect people in the first place?

Permit me to attempt to provide an answer through my reworking of Christian doctrines:

Let's say you were an all-powerful deity--not necessarily the Christian God--and you had an interest in creating one of Plato's Forms: say apricotness. You couldn't really do such a thing without creating the ante-form, the lack of apricotness, could you? Whether the lack of one form is a valid form itself, we'll leave aside for now. At least we know that, having created space in which an apricot could reside (why not make the matter while at it), it is necessary that the lack of apricot is an imaginable thing, and future minions might declare, "I'm an Apricotist," or "I'm a Sinapricotist." My theory about evil is that it is simply the absence of righteousness; when God established righteousness ("light", or "Lo, that's good!") his act of creation necessitated the lack of the thing he created, whence darkness. God also decided early on to represent all that was righteous, making righteousness Godliness and wickedness Godlessness. When God established what was with him, as opposed to what was without him, he established Heaven and Hell (or void or something dank and gloomy).

Now I suppose the violence you speak of was necessary to hunt animals during our prelapsarian days (but only for Christians who don't subscribe to the view that Adam and Eve were vegetarians--I haven't made up my mind on that yet), but the evils of war, poverty, murder, and rape are simply the result of not choosing God. Furthermore, the creation of humankind, although admittedly brought about by a bewildering number of factors according to Christian doctrine alone, is probably best seen as a grand experiment--much like in the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy--and as far as we humans (well, Christians) can surmise (let alone the mice for now) the test is whether humans can make good come of evil. The initial test, which was whether humans would steadfastly choose God, when given the free will to choose either Godliness or Godlessness, resulted in the shameful and embarassing moments in Genesis in which we chose evil over Godliness and God deciding, rather than aborting his plan, to let his very complex set up run on for the time we've come to know as history and existence. So, far from creating evils with which to trap man in the mire of wickedness, He established good and then tried to see if agents of free will would make the same decision He did. In fact, he went one step further and sent his Son to encourage the agents to choose as He did, skewing his results, but opening up new avenues of research.

I hope that conveys my point and exposes you to an answer that is not everyday. As for your second question, why send your Son to die on the Cross, well, I haven't exactly come to grips with that issue, I suppose because I never bothered to question it. My attitude towards the passion and death has simply been gratitude at having a glimpse into the mind of the Christian God through the life of Jesus Christ. But, yes indeed, why send him tens of thousands of years after The Fall? I guess it just felt right.

Thanks for the challenge.
-Boris

Step 1: Provide evidence for the existence of god
Step 2: Wax philosophic about why or how................

You seem to be missing a step.

And WTF regarding not having questioned your god sacrificing his offspring?

(July 9, 2011 at 3:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Step 1: Provide evidence for the existence of god
Step 2: Wax philosophic about why or how................

You seem to be missing a step.

I was taking for granted that God existed and that we were comfortable with that, seeing as how the Young Atheist asked why God had done things the way he did and not why anyone feels he exists. Purposely I left that step out, as it wasn't the main issue. But I might simply ask you this:

Prove He doesn't exist, and I would be exerting myself as much as you. Well, maybe not quite. But I'll first make sure we're talking about the right God. Prove he doesn't exist given He is omnipotent and yet reserved enough to not wrench our free will about, omnipresent Spirit and yet once manifested in flesh, and everything righteous. There is no length of cosmic exploration sufficient to reveal that He is not there, since he can be everywhere; there is no turn of fate that can make it impossible for him to exist (but the problem of pain is a tricky one to handle, as a Christian). Basically, the easy way for Christians to demonstrate that God exists is to ask if good exists, and whether evil occurences can lead back to good, and since most people believe they do, then God must exist, because for Christians all good things come from God (wherever you think good things come from, there is God; when an atheist finds this source, what does he call it?). Next, since God is order and comfort, one may ask whether this world holds any comfort for us in knowing that our meager lives fulfill a higher purpose. Here is where we may part ways: I have faith that a higher purpose exists to make this transient world where we encounter chaos, arbitrary and unfair laws, and disappointment all part of a more orderly existence. You may not think so. You may have been moved deeply during the course of your life to be cynical of and dissatisfied with this supposed higher order, and this is why Christians really aren't troubled to prove everything: instead they have faith. I have faith in higher order of awe-inspiring purpose that our insignificant (by cosmological standards) lives fulfill; I have faith in there being a source of righteousness. Whether or not it's proved doesn't bother me, because we are talking about concepts now aren't we? Order and love? If I'm the sole person with these concepts, but elsewhere people insist they don't have them, they still exist. That I have faith in the Christian God proves His existence.

Now there may be a Texan Corn-Dog God whom my enemies invoke to smite me with flaming Pogo Sticks for my blasphemy, and you would have a much better chance disproving him than the Christian God (my God; some Christians still think God is all about 'goin upside da head'). It's just that I ask for comfortable abstraction from my God, and they ask for ketchupy revenge that makes them so much more vulnerable. Daniel did a lot of this. Read Daniel. There's a cool monster scene.

---

(July 9, 2011 at 4:28 pm)Epimethean Wrote: And WTF regarding not having questioned your god sacrificing his offspring?

Look, it's not as though God said, "don't think, just slay your only son!" to...uh, himself. The Hebrew God did that to Abraham for all sorts of reasons, but this had a better reason. The gospels make clear that Jesus accepts his foretold death (which he otherwise could have avoided) both as necessary for God's plan of ultimately humbling himself to work (among other things on the same bill) and that he does so fearfull of the torment to follow. What was up God's sleeve? Well, by dying Jesus could descend to Hell, give Satan a wicked thrashing, and then bust out those previously barred from Heaven. I know, I know. The rules say, once you've chosen life everlasting without God, you can't go back on it, but at least two people are above the law: Steven Segal and the Son of God. As well, Jesus' sacrifice was important for maintaining the relevancy of the Jewish Passover, which celebrates the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb. Well, guess what. Jesus is the new lamb in town. This and a multitude of other prophetic scriptures were fulfilled when Jesus died, mostly by details of his torture and humiliation by Roman guards and such.

I understood that. What I had failed to question until perhaps a year ago is what the gap between the Fall and the Passion were necessary for. I guess the obvious answer is, "to give time for there to be prophetic writings to be fulfilled, duh!!!" Probably so obvious and everyday that I forgot it shortly after catechism. Anyway, didn't want to leave it sounding like I was a half-tard.

Quote:Let's say you were an all-powerful deity--not necessarily the Christian God--and you had an interest in creating one of Plato's Forms: say apricotness. You couldn't really do such a thing without creating the ante-form, the lack of apricotness, could you?

Our resident fundies will denounce you for suggesting that their "omnipotent" god can't do something. If he can't create apricotness without also creating the lack of apricotness then he is not omnipotent. And they hate it when you say that their boy can't do whatever he wants.

Quote:I was taking for granted that God existed and that we were comfortable with that

First mistake. But welcome anyway.

(June 24, 2011 at 4:57 pm)Godschild Wrote: God did not give man the ability to be violent, that is the direct result of the original sin. I do not question the existance of God as I stated in the above, I do question how the Bible might be translated or the way some scriptures are taught but not the existance of God and I do not question wither the Bible is God's word. I have at times questioned my salvation, I have always come to terms with that. To question is only human. Questioning can be a form of doubt or it can be an avenue to find the truth without doubting.

I guess everytime I see a variation in this thread of "God didn't create evil, Man did," I will have to keep responding with God's own word in the Bible that you're not reading, until you can answer it or concede. Also your non-sequiteur: You don't question the Bible is God's word but you question both how it is translated and how it is taught.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV) - (So if the LORD creates evil, what are Satan's and Hell's purpose?)
(I have highlighted the relevant segment in colour too, I figured out how. A color command duh.)

If God did not have the capacity to create evil himself, he could not have created that capacity in us. And everything I read in Genesis (both mutually-exclusive creation stories) indicates Satan had nothing to do with creating anything in mankind. Perhaps, unlike Microsoft, which ofttimes views itself as a deity, God failed to issue Human Service Pack 1.

It was a snake that tempted Eve in the garden. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that snake is Satan. Eve could not have been tempted if God had not created the capacity of temptation and wrongdoing within both her and Adam. Your interpretation about evil is not supported by your own book. If you are going to base your religious faith on a book, you should want to know what's in the whole book, I would think.

I've read it, many times. And I fully understand the ancient modern English of the KJV, and the shifting of definitions of words and phrases. Do you?

Even if you are given the pass that the Bible counts as evidence, then it's the whole Bible, or none of it. And either it's the Word of God, or it's not. If it's the Word of God, you either believe it, or you do not. (Sorry, agnostics, knowing is not a requirement of believing. An agnostic can be either a theist, or a nontheist, but cannot sit on the fence between those two positions: there isn't a position of "I believe a little bit," or "I mostly don't believe" or "The Bible is correct about theology in some places but not in others."

And you still haven't answered my question on why you are an atheist on all religions, including mine, except your own. Why do you believe your version of Christianity over all others, over Hinduism, or Sikhism, or Jainism, or Wicca, or Shinto, or Discordia, or Bhuddism, or animism, or Islam, or Judaism, or Norse mythology, or Greek mythology, or Roman mythology, or. . . .

What makes yours more special than the others (evidence, not testimony)? And why aren't you demanding women keep their place and be silent about matters of faith, or giving away all your worldly things and going forth to preach, as commanded in the New Testament? Did God buy your computer?

Recap: Sorry. Atheists and folk like me already know where evil comes from. Don't need a God of Evil for that either. That's a Christian thing.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV)

James. And if you harm none, do what you will. (The Wiccan Rede is a much better moral compass than the Golden Rule.)

Boris Wrote:Let's say you were an all-powerful deity--not necessarily the Christian God--and you had an interest in creating one of Plato's Forms: say apricotness. You couldn't really do such a thing without creating the ante-form, the lack of apricotness, could you?

This puts a limitation on God: he is not omnipotent as he cannot create one thing without it's anteform. Christian theology insists God is omnipotent, so in theory God could create "good" without creating "evil." However, Isaiah clearly states he creates evil, so the point is moot.

(July 9, 2011 at 9:01 pm)Boris Spacek Wrote: But I might simply ask you this:

Prove He doesn't exist

Oooh another one!

There's this thing called the burden of proof matey, and it is most certainly on YOU.