Debunking Christianity? It's actually quite as simple as asking "why?"

[Boris Spacek]

It's a pitiable condition not to be able to form abstractions. My condolences.

"Harry Potter is perfect" ... "may you burn in hell." ... Are you sure you're an atheist?

The Hebrew god is a well defined bronze age myth. He has names, alternate names, a cosmic resume, so to speak, and holy texts. Where is the wiggle room there?

Nope, I don't believe perfection exists, prove it. On the other hand, Harry Potter is perfect, and to say otherwise is blasphemy, may you burn in hell.

On the subject of being an atheist: why exactly would god not be very well defined for me? What would I have to call bs on if not for the definitions and descriptions of god?

You're right, I'm not interested in debating anything at all about a cultural artifact if one can simply define a thing any way they like. It's mental masturbation. I'd like to argue for the virtue of eating children, as long as I can redefine eating as "spending quality time with". Pointless. But that's all apologists have isn't it.

Bile = Death
Death exists
ergo Bile exists

Mac Lir = The Sea
The sea exists
ergo Mac Lir exists

---

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.
And by the way:
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 would have highlighted the relevant segment in colour too, but I don't know how to do that. - James.
[/font]

http://carm.org/does-god-create-evil

This link should do. But there are countless other sites which speak of this.

A God of Evil? How could I have missed this obvious Gnostic heretical nonesense.

[The Grand Nudger]

So evil then, is an example of something that exists that god is not responsible for, that he did not create. In at least this arena, god is not the source? Congratulations, ever closer to the light. What else can we excuse god for, what else did he not create?

I don't have an ounce of hebrew blood, perhaps he didn't create me?

(Have you posted this link before, or is it the current go to link? I've seen it more than once in the last month.)

[Boris Spacek]

So evil then, is an example of something that exists that god is not responsible for, that he did not create. In at least this arena, god is not the source? Congratulations, ever closer to the light. What else can we excuse god for, what else did he not create?

I don't have an ounce of hebrew blood, perhaps he didn't create me?

(Have you posted this link before, or is it the current go to link? I've seen it more than once in the last month.)

The God of Darkness/God of Light dualism is a feature of the early Gnostic Christian sects. I know the poster probably wasn't referring to it, but I couldn't resist.

In my very first post, I suggested that evil was the necessary corollary to good. In that sense, God "created" good and evil, in that without evil, good could not exist. Someone almost immediately claimed this violated God's omnipotency, not being able to create one and not the other, but one or two pointed out that God's inability to do something illogical or impossible does not make Him any less omnipotent, either because we're incapable of properly articulating what it is we believe He can't do, or because omnipotence cannot really refer to things that are absolutely impossible (forbidden by the same laws by which they are defined).

And if it sounds like apologists are excusing God, well, that's because they are excusing--but excusing rather humans for misrepresenting God. Hebrew blood has nothing to do with it; rather matter does.

What link?

[The Grand Nudger]

NP Spacek, you get back to me when you have the definitive proof that your god exists, and then we can start having a discussion about how he was misrepresented (and by whom).

The only sure-fire way to avoid misrepresenting god is to keep ones mouth shut.

[Boris Spacek]

NP Spacek, you get back to me when you have the definitive proof that your god exists, and then we can start having a discussion about how he was misrepresented (and by whom).

The only sure-fire way to avoid misrepresenting god is to keep ones mouth shut.

Yes, I regret using the word "misrepresent" in talking to you.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The God of Darkness/God of Light dualism is a feature of the early Gnostic Christian sects. I know the poster probably wasn't referring to it, but I couldn't resist.

Indeed,and is central tenet of Zoroastrianism which predates Christianity by at least 500 years... Christianity DID indeed invent the popular view of evil and the devil.This was achieved by the simple expedient of demonising opposing beliefs and their gods. Well, the one's they couldn't assimilate,such as various mother goddesses.* EG the harmless wood nymph,Pan, became the horned,cloven footed devil.

So far I have yet to discover a single,absolute,universal moral imperative. I am unable to believe in evil as an objective reality any more than I am able to believe in gods. For the same reason;no credible evidence.


*essentially the origin of the Marian cult and the reason for its continuing popularity. Christianity hast no female deity, so worshhips one sneakily as the Virgin.
Reference "Alone Of All Her Sex;The Myth And Cult of the Virgin Mary" by Marina Warner..

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Basic Zoroastrian beliefs: (some things have a certain familiarity to anyone brought in one of the Abrahamic faiths)

Zoroastrians believe that there is one universal and transcendent God, Ahura Mazda. He is said to be the one uncreated Creator to whom all worship is ultimately directed.[6] Ahura Mazda's creation—evident as asha, truth and order—is the antithesis of chaos, which is evident as druj, falsehood and disorder. The resulting conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity, which has an active role to play in the conflict.[6]

The religion states that active participation in life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will, and Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism. Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail over the evil Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, at which point the universe will undergo a cosmic renovation and time will end. In the final renovation, all of creation—even the souls of the dead that were initially banished to "darkness"—will be reunited in Ahura Mazda, returning to life in the undead form. At the end of time, a savior-figure (a Saoshyant) will bring about a final renovation of the world (frasho.kereti), in which the dead will be revived.[6]

In Zoroastrian tradition, the malevolent is represented by Angra Mainyu (also referred to as "Ahriman"), the "Destructive Principle", while the benevolent is represented through Ahura Mazda's Spenta Mainyu, the instrument or "Bounteous Principle" of the act of creation. It is through Spenta Mainyu that transcendental Ahura Mazda is immanent in humankind, and through which the Creator interacts with the world. According to Zoroastrian cosmology, in articulating the Ahuna Vairya formula, Ahura Mazda made His ultimate triumph evident to Angra Mainyu. As expressions and aspects of Creation, Ahura Mazda emanated the Amesha Spentas ("Bounteous Immortals"), that are each the hypostasis and representative of one aspect of that Creation. These Amesha Spenta are in turn assisted by a league of lesser principles, the Yazatas, each "Worthy of Worship" and each again a hypostasis of a moral or physical aspect of creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

[Faith No More]

In my very first post, I suggested that evil was the necessary corollary to good. In that sense, God "created" good and evil, in that without evil, good could not exist.

What we humans have deemed good could definitely exist without evil. The only thing evil would be necessary for is for us to understand the conept of good. If good cannot exist without evil, then there must be evil in heaven.