Knowing everything and allowing evil

[tackattack]

I hope you weren't personally offended Welsh. In review I seemed to come off as condemning, it wasn't my intent. I was just trying to point out how you clearly already prefer aloneness in the afterlife. To answer your question, no. The trip isn't necessary. I'm given life though, and I enjoy living it. It's really about how you live it and how you're bettering yourself. I feel theism helps me in that, you feel it would be a hinderance to you. Both of us end up this life in the same place. If that's all there is then, the real value in this life is how much better you make it for you and those around you. I can appreciate that, and that's probably why I get along pretty good with quite a few good natured atheists.

[Welsh cake]

I hope you weren't personally offended Welsh.

Don't be silly, I'm not offended by you. You're more rational as a theist than I ever was, especially during my church-going-days. I don't think any of this is real. Some theists out there however do offend me, but that's only because some of them gleefully preach eternal hellfire for atheists like myself, simply because we don't share their beliefs. That they're idol threats does not negate the fact that they're still threats nonetheless.

I was just trying to point out how you clearly already prefer aloneness in the afterlife.

I don't believe there is an afterlife. Point I was making was if the Biblical god had somehow been proven to be demonstrably real, and he forsakes people or responsible for their creation and predestination to condemnation, I want -nothing- to do with him. If that means escaping to nothingness then so be it.

To answer your question, no. The trip isn't necessary.

Not the response I was expecting. You are aware you'll carry around an immense burden in the cognitive dissonance of believing in a benevolent deity that allows evil and natural evil to occur, right? That's not healthy for you in the long-run.

[Godscreated]

@ Abra, you are ranting the same old stuff that an atheist who recently joined has and before either of you got here I'd heard it all, so if you can't bring new things then I want respond to your posts.

---

I hope you weren't personally offended Welsh.

Don't be silly, I'm not offended by you. You're more rational as a theist than I ever was, especially during my church-going-days. I don't think any of this is real. Some theists out there however do offend me, but that's only because some of them gleefully preach eternal hellfire for atheists like myself, simply because we don't share their beliefs. That they're idol threats does not negate the fact that they're still threats nonetheless.

Welsh cake, I have mentioned hell many times and have never meant it as a threat. I've used it because it is what I believe or it was the subject at the time, besides I do not believe in an eternal fire. I do believe in an eternal hell.

[Abracadabra]

@ Abra, you are ranting the same old stuff that an atheist who recently joined has and before either of you got here I'd heard it all, so if you can't bring new things then I want respond to your posts.

A Christian proselytizer is going to ask me to bring something NEW to the table.



That's truly funny. Christianity is a 2000 year old feeble fable that is riddled with blatant absurdities and contradictions. If the same things are being pointed out over and over again it's only because the religion can't be changed or modified to make any sense.

It's forever stuck being the same absurd fables that it always was.

[tackattack]

Not the response I was expecting. You are aware you'll carry around an immense burden in the cognitive dissonance of believing in a benevolent deity that allows evil and natural evil to occur, right? That's not healthy for you in the long-run.

Glad I can still surprise you after all this time . I'm not aware of and cognitive dissonance with having a benevolent, all creator deity belief and the fact that evil is necessary for a definition of good.
If the burden of my reality ever gets too much, I'll be sure to let you be the first to know though, I appreciate the concern, genuinely

[chi pan]

alright, it looks like there is a misunderstanding when it comes to God making evil. before we ask the question why did God create evil lets think about what evil is. evil is completely opinionated but sense we're talking about evil in comparisson to God let's just look at that. everything that is good is a part of God, so everything that is evil is basically everything that is not a part of God. if God did not allow evil to exist, we would have no choice but him because there would be no other choice and therefore he is giving us a choice. our choice is to be a part of God or not. if not God our choice is evil.

another misunderstanding is that God creates people to be evil and sends them to hell. God does not judge us on what we are, he judges us on what we do. God does not control our choices. the closest he does to influence our choices is using the world to influence us (or dreams or revelations). everything you consider to be "fucked up" is simply everything that is not a part of God.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Tack "Vanilla is necessary for the definition of chocolate"...sigh. What's the opposite of watermelon, since we can't define anything except by it's opposite? Or is this a special case? I don't think that "fact" is a fact at all........

@Chip, roger, roger, credit for the good, washes hands on the bad. Either your description of god is flawed, or your god is a tool......take your pick?

[chi pan]

@Tack "Vanilla is necessary for the definition of chocolate"...sigh. What's the opposite of watermelon, since we can't define anything except by it's opposite? Or is this a special case? I don't think that "fact" is a fact at all........

@Chip, roger, roger, credit for the good, washes hands on the bad. Either your description of god is flawed, or your god is a tool......take your pick?

your fact is not relevant. yes, not everything is black and white. not everything is opposite BUT, what are we talking about? we are talking about good and evil. therefore in order to talk about good and evil you must bring the word opposite into the conversation. no one will disagree that some things are good and some things are bad and some things are neither.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, people feel that some things are good, and some are bad, but I see no need to invoke any "opposite" when referencing the other. If you want to take up a question I asked to Tack..I'd like you to define the opposite of watermelon before you can define watermelon. Or is this just another case of apologetic bullshit? Can we really talk about watermelon without referencing the opposite of watermelon? Since no "opposite of watermelon" has been identified (to my knowledge), does this mean that watermelon has no definition, or no definition exists, or no watermelon exists?

[chi pan]

Sure, people feel that some things are good, and some are bad, but I see no need to invoke any "opposite" when referencing the other. If you want to take up a question I asked to Tack..I'd like you to define the opposite of watermelon before you can define watermelon. Or is this just another case of apologetic bullshit? Can we really talk about watermelon without referencing the opposite of watermelon? Since no "opposite of watermelon" has been identified (to my knowledge), does this mean that watermelon has no definition, or no definition exists, or no watermelon exists?

your question is stupid because obviously watermelon has no opposite. but we aren't talking about fruit we're talking about good and evil and i can say that good and evil are opposites with 100% accuracy. do you disagree?

---

do you really find it effective to take something that's completely unrelated to the topic and try and ralate it to prove a point?