I think the problem of evil is, in itself, a good reason for not believing in god(s).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo
Why?
>>313144
If god exists why would he give children leukemia ?
>>313143
Agreed.
Beyond that, even an evil God should want to be more involved in our day to day lives.
>>313151
He doesn't care.
Problem of Evil flowchart
>inb4 christians claim evil doesn't exist
>inb4 christians claim free will is good but also causes all evil that exists
>>313156
If he made the world he cared enough to create leukemia in the first place.
ITT: babby's first theodicy
>>313152
>that pic
Heaven is a spiritual state, where one is simply closer to God.
If you cannot even attempt to interpret Christian doctrine, then please refrain from speaking about it.
>>313176
>Heaven is a spiritual state, where one is simply closer to God.
That doesn't answer the question posed in the pic
>>313160
He doesn't care about YOU
>>313158
There is a God. He is not good.
>>313193
>There is a God
Prove it.
>He is not good.
Prove it.
>>313152
That's flawed. Implying a heaven exists as it is depicted, there would be no evil - not because there is no free will, but because only inherently good people would be allowed in.
>>313176
you are a paragon of this board
>>313199
I'm sorry that I worded that post wrong. I was in a hurry. I meant that I believe there is a God and I believe that he is not good.
>>313152
Evil can exist in heaven. A good example is Satan's rebellion.
>>313176
That's sure as hell not how the original Christians thought of it.
>>313202
>only inherently good people would be allowed in.
And these good people did not sin at all in the ~80 years they were alive and will continue to not sin for all eternity? Why would God make such people and also create evil people?
>>313207
>Evil can exist in heaven
Sounds like God seriously fucked up then.
>>313222
Because he made living creatures rather than automatons?
Evil is a spook
>>313229
>It's impossible to make something alive that is not evil
Guess God isn't omnipotent
>>313160
Things like leukemia are a product of original sin corrupting the material world.
>>313186
>Can evil exist in Heaven?
How is the king elected in an anarchist commune?
>>313210
That's how Orthodox interpret it, apparently.
>>313261
Good is about choosing not to be evil. God gave humans a choice. If he programmed them so they could not choose to be evil, they'd be automatons.
God gave us free will. That includes the possibility of doing evil. But without free will our lives woumd be meaningless.
>>313275
>If he programmed them so they could not choose to be evil, they'd be automatons.
Then he should have done that to maximize goodness and minimize evil.
Also, why would a human programmed to be able to do good and evil not be an automaton?
>>313281
>without free will our lives woumd be meaningless.
They would be meaningless either way, there is no reason God should have created you rather than not created you. All of his actions are meaningless.
Honestly I think Christians never came up with a good answer for the problem of evil. The common answer is that evil is necessary for free will, but as this points out
>>313158
It asks the question of whether God could have had free will+no evil. The solution for this problem is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds
Which says, no God can't, but he did give us the best possible world. No world could possibly have less evil!
Voltaire wrote an entire book making fun of the idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide
>>313305
>The talking snake answer?
So to speak. The material world did not initially have death in it, even. It was infected by original sin, which distorted the whole thing.
>>313261
Giving a creature free will means allowing it to do as it pleases. If God were to prevent that creature from exercising its free will then it would not be free. That's not a reflection of God's inability to prevent a creature from doing evil, it just means that total free will is not compatible with its opposite.
>>313310
You do realize this conflicts with everything we know about biology? Animals and humans have always been mortal and stricken with disease.
The only way you could interpret that part of Genesis literally is to be deny evolutionary biology.
>humanity whines nonstop about why a loving God would ever let bad things happen to good people
>we can't enjoy a story without having our made-up characters go through hardship upon hardship for no reason
The reason evil exists in the world is because we're too stupid to realize that we do the same thing when we craft all these narratives that God does when people suffer on Earth.
>>313320
We routinely restrain or prevent people from doing evil. We lock them up, we hire cops to capture, stop, even shoot them if necessary. We regard it as a morally acceptable, even a morally obligatory thing to act in self defense or to come to someone else's aid when they are being victimized by another. We regard it as an unqualified good to set up institutions and procedures that prevent people from doing or wanting to do evil acts. And we know for a fact most evil is done in ignorance, and thus we strive to educate people as well as possible. We also punish and reward by many different means so as to encourage good and discourage bad behavior. If all this is good for us, even morally obligatory, and is not a "violation" of the free will of evil doers, it is absurd to say it is wrong for a god to do it, that it violates free will only when HE does it but not when WE do.
>But God would do it too well!
It is absurd to think we can have a society that was too fair. One wonders, again, what heaven could possibly be like, or why we would want to go there, if there is such a thing as too nice a place to live. If heaven is better than this place, then God has no excuse not to make this place better, too. And even assuming there is such a thing as too much niceness and justice, who better to give us exactly the amount that is right, but an all-knowing, all-powerful, superintelligent being? Are we to say that we are already there, that more justice than we have now, more good than we have now, would be too much, would somehow take away our free will? If you really believe that, then you should oppose with fierce horror any attempt to improve crime control or prevention, or the justice system, or our medical system, or medical abilities and technologies, or any compassionate enterprise whatever, including soup kitchens and Doctors without Borders. For all these things would be unconsciously violating our free will. Yet that is clearly absurd.
>>313281
>God gave us free will
But he did this, knowing in advance it would doom several billions to eternal suffering. He had to the power to prevent this, yet choose not to
The only two conclusions that I can conclude from this is that God is either incompetent, or evil
>>313310
Even given the multiple other objections that could be raised, this >>313322 being one. There is a significant problem here that if the original occupants of Eden had free will [without evil existing] and then why did an omnipotent god even need to put the tree and the darned snake there in the first place? He is omniscient and omnipotent after all, he knew the outcome when he did it.
>>313344
Free will is more important than avoiding suffering.
>>313390
1) It's a dodgy claim that free will is compatible with an omniscient, omnipotent god
2) Free will doesn't explain cancer or tsunamis
3) The bible (this objection only applies to Jews and Christians) indicates that god does interfere with human affairs so suggesting god doesn't because free will is too important is nonsense.
>>313322
Yes, animals are mortal due to original sin. The material world understanding it was we do is distortion of the initial material world. The initial one is difficult to fathom, it might not even look the same, in fact it probably would not. Originally, the material and the heavenly were two dimensions of the same reality. Satan's sin plus man's sin created a schism in them, which will be restored on Judgement Day.
>>313406
Free will is compatible with such a god. Just because you know what will happen doesn't mean you have to interfere. And God absolutely does not interfere with free will in the Christian text.
>>313457
In a world where an omnipotent god exists then Satan is controlled opposition and man does whatever god created it to do. Simply saying Satan did this, man did that is ignoring the ultimate authority and the ultimate responsibility.
>>313353
The tree of knowledge just means our sensory conception of good and evil (physical pleasure and pain). We always had access to it, but it was it was completely harmonic with our spiritual knowledge of good and evil. Partaking of it meant that our sensory conception of good and evil (physical pleasure and pain) became instinctual predominant rather than harmonic, leading to a rift between the spiritual and the physical.
That's the Orthodox view, at least.
>>313465
>God absolutely does not interfere with free will in the Christian text.
Wat... God interferes with people in the Bible every other chapter.
>>313471
Right, the ultimate responsibility lies with us, not Satan.
>>313471
The responsibility lies with Man and Man alone. That's what all religions before Christianity were mystifying, all of them are about blaming gods for everything men do.
>>313476
I'm talking about Christianity, not Judaism.
>>313503
Are you saying the God of the OT is not the god of the NT?
>>313519
He's saying the Christian Church doesn't view most of the OT as a documentary.
>>313528
>>313538
Are you seriously suggesting the Bible is one genre? Because the Desert Fathers certainly didn't think it was.
>>313538
None of the Bible is the word of God. And everything that matters to Christianity is in the New Testament. The Old Testament is only there to provide context for the New.
There's a neat passage from Jung which basically says that humans have a need to explain evil in their religion. Since evil is always present and evil is the opposite of good it forces there to be a dichotomy.
In the earliest understanding a God would possess both elements of good and evil. This is how Yahweh originally was back when the Jews were polytheistic. Good and evil are balanced within the God himself. But they wanted a 'good God' so they had to remove all the evil from him.
Than when they moved to monotheism good and evil split into two. The evil half to God was the devil. For a good understanding look at dark age Christianity where the devil is at his ultimate power. All the disease, all the wild animal attacks, all the natural disasters, they were all his doing. He had an army of millions of demons that could hurt you in a thousand different ways. Thus we have the balance of evil by two opposite divine figures. But they started taking away the devils power, making him matter less and less and some would say he was just a metaphor
So if evil cannot be in God or any other divine thing the only place left to put evil is in man himself. Thus we must say man himself is evil. The idea of calling man the source of all evil is incredibly dangerous. But wait that's negative and wrong, man can't be evil either so the Christians are trying to get rid of that! This destroys the dichotomy and balance of good and evil. If you can't have evil you can't have good which in turn destroys God.
All of it is a result of rejecting what the ancients already knew from the start, that good and evil are both parts of the whole. You'd need to go all the way back the earliest form of the religion to know the truth. God, like man has elements of both good and evil and embraces both of them. That's the only way to solve the problem of evil, it's to stop thinking of evil as a problem.
>>313587
>Guy I was responding to said the entire OT was a metaphor.
A lot of it is.
>>313594
And anyway, there are a lot more genres besides "metaphorical" and "historical account". The Book of Job, for instance, is neither an allegory nor an historical account.
The logical problem of evil is widely considered to have been refuted a long time ago. When you don't even know what the words "omnipotent" and "omniscience" really mean and keep conflating specific monotheistic Gods with the maximally great being that the debate was actually over, it's time to pick up an introductory book on the subject and stop fedora tipping on the internet over things you don't understand. This includes atheist scholars in the philosophy of religion.
>>313623
How so?
>>313610
Oh please. "U don't really understand innit, why not read some more wizardology" is lamest point of all.
You are correct at least that omnipotence and omniiscience are completely incoherent and paradoxical but if you want to defend them as concepts you will have to try a little bit harder.
>>313641
No, it would literally be a waste of time. You don't even understand basic terminology. Atheist scholars (if they were on 4chan) would also think you're stupid. The logical problem of evil isn't a problem anymore.
>>313651
Most arguments from Incoherence, as they are called, are often frivolous. A typical example is the taunt “If God is all-powerful, can he make a rock so big even he can’t lift it?” This is supposed to prove that omnipotence is illogical and therefore God (who is supposed to be omnipotent) doesn’t exist. There are many arguments like that. But I don’t buy them. These are generally not valid, since any definition of god (or his properties) that is illogical can just be revised to be logical. So in effect, Arguments from Incoherence aren’t really arguments for atheism, but for the reform of theology.
But in a few cases, the theological reforms that would be required to avoid defeat at the hands of an Argument from Incoherence are reforms that fly in the face of all popular beliefs about God. For example, it is obvious that a perfect being, by any definition, could not and would not create an imperfect universe, yet the universe is imperfect, therefore God cannot be perfect. This does not prove there is no God, but it does prove that, given the way the universe plainly is, if any God exists, he is imperfect. We can know this with almost absolute certainty—the evidence is that overwhelming, far more overwhelming than any evidence to the contrary.
After all, the design of man, and nature generally, is wasteful and messy, inefficient and full of needless vulnerabilities and imperfections, pitfalls and limitations. So whether he’s kind or cruel, we can be quite sure that if there is a God, he isn’t perfect. This also entails something more, refuting all popular conceptions of God: it entails that any God who promises to take us to heaven cannot exist. For if such a God existed, we would already be in heaven. It leaves us with an inexplicable god-concept, proving that there just isn’t any way God can make sense to us, unless we adopt an idea of God wholly alien to anything anyone has ever found believable or comforting.
>>313684
>This is supposed to prove that omnipotence is illogical and therefore God
Instead it proves that the person doesn't know what omnipotence means in the actual academic literature, which goes back to my original point that none of you so far in this thread actually know shit. Go pick up a book.
>>313717
Hello there, I see you're attempting to troll. Please read entire post before trolling to be more effective
>>313729
Your post is just a longer winded version of bad arguments.
>imperfect world
>rock so big even he can't lift it
>popular notions of god instead of MGB
>le problem of evil
Let's just agree that you totally demolished an incoherent notion of God that exists only in the minds of confused people who haven't done any serious reading on the subject
>>313770
>Let's just agree that you totally demolished an incoherent notion of God that exists only in the minds of confused people who haven't done any serious reading on the subject
>the minds of confused people who haven't done any serious reading on the subject
My point was that almost every religious person in the world fits this description, including the desert Jews that originally invented the concept of Yahweh and the other gods
>>313143
okay so lets remove evil, now good has no meaning lol
lets remove death too to create our utopia, well now life has no meaning
Because god is a neutral being from which everything stems, good and evil.
God is existence, and we are conscious iterations within a greater whole.
If you want goodness in the world, put goodness into it.
Also, I'm never taking philosophical advice from anyone who was ever on Bones.
>>313651
>The logical problem of evil isn't a problem anymore.
For some reason you can't even begin to articulate apparently.
>>313684
>I don't buy them
>they are not valid
>this can be revised to be logical
>these aren't really arguments
>they are arguments for reform of theology
Was this post part of a competition to say nothing with the most possible words?
>>313824
That was perfectly intelligible to anyone who doesn't take things literally. PEBKAC.
>>313847
You didn't make a point at all and you know it.
>>313836
Hi there, I see you are incapable of reading an entire post. Since my point was clearly made in the final paragraph.
>implying the things you regard as "evil" don't exist as a necessary contrast to precipitate change therefore making the idea of dual morality a moot point
>>313853
>After all, the design of man, and nature generally, is wasteful and messy, inefficient and full of needless vulnerabilities and imperfections, pitfalls and limitations. So whether he’s kind or cruel, we can be quite sure that if there is a God, he isn’t perfect. This also entails something more, refuting all popular conceptions of God: it entails that any God who promises to take us to heaven cannot exist. For if such a God existed, we would already be in heaven. It leaves us with an inexplicable god-concept, proving that there just isn’t any way God can make sense to us, unless we adopt an idea of God wholly alien to anything anyone has ever found believable or comforting.
Was this paragraph part of a competition to say nothing with the most possible words?
>>313630
To paraphrase Peter Parker, with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility.
>>313882
God shared his power with us, that is why we have free will, that is how we are made in his image.
>>313158
>Evil Exists
False premise.
>>313909
>Rape, murder, hell, satan, and malaria are not evil
>>313940
They have no impact on the final perfection, therefore they can't be said to be opposed to the final perfection, therefore they can't said to be evil.
>>313995
>final perfection
If there were supposed to be a final perfection it would have already happened. No need for a long, painful, clumsy drawn-out process to get there. (BTW do you mean the heat death of the universe?)
>>313158
God's a storyteller, and there was never a great story without tragedy. If Kamina had never died, Simone would have never risen to true manliness.
>>314201
>God's a storyteller
For who?
God is the Supersoul which is within all beings. Each being is a part of God, every being has a soul. He is the Supersoul in everyone's heart.
There are 3 delusions about God..
>"There is no God"
>"I am God"
>"I don't care about God"
Another is not blaming religion and the people misusing religion and blaming God instead.
>>315196
>Muhammed asking people why they are doing shit he not only told them to do, but stuff he did.
>Buddha as a fat chinese man
>Jesus thinking the crusades were bad and about religion
this triggered me
>>315196
>actually drawing muhammed
THE ABSOLUTE MADMAN!
>>315217
>>Jesus thinking the crusades were bad
Second and Fourth crusades were pretty fucking bad
>>315196
>Fat "Buddha"
>>315196
There was nothing wrong with the Crusades or the Inquisition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18EderfKDOM
>>315277
Isn't there a part in one of Dostoevsky's novels where Christ comes back to earth and the inquisition thinks he is a heretic?
the only airtight theodicy is plotinus' metaphysics. even gnosticism breaks down when we ask why the pleroma, or even just aeons higher than sophia, don't just bitch slap the demiurge and reabsorb the hell that is the physical universe
christian theodicies are shit-tier. the only tenable one is "if you died young or whatever, you get a VIP pass to heaven" which is okay and well but unproveable.
>>315291
Yes, it makes sense really. If someone goes around claiming they are the son of God or a prophet or God told them to kill their son then they are labeled as insane.
>>315196
That is Buddai
>313143
I got this from a tripfriend named Praceteom.
>>316344
>evil doesn't exist cause god made everything and god is good
Wow, what a great and completely incoherent argument
>>313143
What is Gnosticism, family?
>>313143
Religious People BTFO: The Thread
>>315182
Have you never created stories "in your head" just for yourself?
It's fun.
Especially if you're sitting on the toilet.
>>316791
Well, that makes sense in the context of a human... But not a perfect being with a perfect mind that exists by itself with no reason to create or do anything, since everything is already perfect
>>313538
But anon! They just turn on the holy spirit when reading the bible to understand what each passage means.
You seem to be completely unaware that the holy spirit method has created unanimous agreement between Christians as to the meaning of each passage of the bible!
Daily Christian vs skeptic thread.
(and also the only reason I come to /his/)
We are limited forms of God. God is role-playing as every role. Any evil committed is committed by God and against God.
God would not inhibit his own free will to prevent himself from suffering, because suffering is trivial to him. God is both victim and perpetrator.
Furthermore, evil doesn't truly exist. It is merely the shadow left by a conflict of interests. A murderer derives pleasure from murdering (simplified case); while the murdered deprives pleasure from living.
Evil, then, is a deprivation of pleasure.
Pleasure being a simplified umbrella term for desire fulfillment.
I am not a Christian; Christian reasoning is meaningless to me. However, attempting to pigeonhole God based on our subjective ideals of what is proper, is also meaningless to me. Should God do X? If X is prevent evil, then no, God is under no such obligation.
You've forgotten you are God because God wants to experience limited existence. When you die, you will remember that you are God; you will remember that you are both the victim and the perpetrator of all your sins. Therefore there is no need for retribution.
When you remember that you are God, your limited mortal concerns may no longer seem relevant. Reuniting with your loved ones would be redundant because you ARE your loved ones.
My philosophy makes people angry, but I've yet to encounter actual arguments against it.
If this some how invalidates your religion, then that's not my problem. But God can have his cake AND eat it, meaning all religions can be true within limited systems while being false within the grand scheme.
God is playing life with our existences because eternity is a long time, and God has no playmates beyond himself. Hinduism gets into that pretty well. He basically invents the Devil to help prevent him from waking up and remembering the meaninglessness of existence beyond the meaning he gives it.
>>320923
The murdered DERIVES pleasure from living.
Typo.
>>315291
>Orthodox schismatics
>knowing jack shit about anything
lol
The problem of evil only applies to a God that's claimed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and absolutely good. This would mess with Christian theology, but doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a god or gods out there, just that they're lacking in one or more of those qualities.
>>313143
That's a shitty reason to not believe in god. God might just be an asshole.
>>313717
This is the height of a non-argument. It's tantamount to saying "go somewhere else." It's an even lower argument than that style of argument that would turn every thread into a bibliography. Either you participate in the discussion, or you're shitposting.
>>321046
I agree. Why even have conversations if they devolve into bibliographies? Are we not allowed to infer new interpretations without those interpretations being confined to peer reviewed essays?
>>321004
No point in worshipping him then
Most African tribes believed in one omnipotent God above mortals and spirits.
He/She/It/They does not give a shit about anything on this plane of reality and we're kind of stuck on our own.
Christianity took hold easily because of the notion of an apathetic almighty God, but lots of friendly saints to ask for help.
>>313406
Cancer and tsunamis are of nature, and (although bad) are not inherently evil.
>>313158
Here is what's wrong.
If God was all Powerful. Could he create a universe where he wasn't all powerful in?
This universe could be one of those.
>>322222
>off by one
>mfw
>he believes in the christian god
>>313143
The Greek gods were chaotic evil at times desu
>>321004
>worshipping assholes
>>322256
>>322331
>that's all he can say
>>322331
>>322297
>at times
>>313684
>For example, it is obvious that a perfect being, by any definition, could not and would not create an imperfect universe, yet the universe is imperfect, therefore God cannot be perfect.
Thats wrong though. To be a perfect being God must have perfect freedom to create what ever kind of universe he wants to. To be truly perfect all options must be open to him. Just because God could create a better world doesn't mean that he is obligated to. Likewise, the only thing that is actually perfect is God, to create a perfect universe God would have to create himself, but one of God's primary properties is being uncreated- so the request that God create a perfect universe is logically incoherent.
>>323317
He would have the freedom, but not the tendency
>>313176
>interpret Christian doctrine
Rationalize*
>>313189
>>313193
>>321004
>>316769
If god is evil then why bother worshipping him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSdGr4K4qLg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHt0Y4aAqk8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY1PFvC6zu4
>>326507
Why not?
>>326592
Because an asshole might just do anything anyway.
>>326640
And?
>>326507
Because he will kick your ass, faggot.
>>326662
So what's the point in worshipping him? If he is an asshole that simply doesn't give a shit then he doesn't care about your worship, or belief, or whatever you do.
Sure this can't be that much of an undecipherable, unintelligible, complex, complicated, abstract point for you to grasp?
>>326676
>threats
Pfft
>>326700
You've jumped from he COULD be an asshole to he IS an asshole.
>>326712
You don't appear to be following the discussion. I don't think he exists at all. I was responding to the arguments of people that said "yes he does exist but he is an asshole".
>>326722
>yes he does exist but he is an asshole
You would have a problem with an all powerful entity if he wasn't nice? If he exists, it really wouldn't matter if he fit your personal description of "being nice", he would "kick your ass" all the same. You can scoff at it all you want, but i doubt you would if you actually faced him. You would shit yourself, drop to your knees and beg forgiveness.
>>326788
I never said he does exist but he is an asshole, nice attempt at misrepresenting my position. I said he doesn't exist and pointed out that the people who says he does but is an asshole are kidding themselves because what the hell is the point of worshipping an asshole.
>>326820
>I never said he does exist but he is an asshole, nice attempt at misrepresenting my position
Which is why i said "if".
> I said he doesn't exist
How do you know that?
>people who says he does but is an asshole are kidding themselves because what the hell is the point of worshipping an asshole.
Because he would kick your ass?
>>326832
>Which is why i said "if".
Not in your greentext here >>326788
>How do you know that?
I don't think he exists because of the problem of evil and if he does exist and I am wrong then the problem of evil means there is no pint worshipping him anyway.
>Because he would kick your ass?
Oh no! Brock Lesnar could as well, do you see me sucking his dick?
>>313158
Your definition of Good/Love has no bearing whatsoever on what God has defined Good/Love to mean.
You can't pin down the divine using a simplistic algorithm.
>>326907
>Oh no! Brock Lesnar could as well, do you see me sucking his dick?
That's only because he doesn't want you to do it. If he did you would.
>>326907
>no pint worshipping him anyway.
Even though he could potentially torture you for all of entirety? Try thinking here.
>Oh no! Brock Lesnar could as well, do you see me sucking his dick?
Is he in your room right now?
>>322222
No, because that's logically contradictory. It'd be like making a four sided triangle, it's contained within the definition that a triangle has three sides so of course it would be impossible - not because God is not omnipotent, but because the premise is logically incoherent.
>>326705
I believe you misunderstand the nature of Christianity and religion in general. You probably think every religion is based around the notion of faith. This, however, only holds true for Christianity. Most other religions are based around the concept of complying with certain ritualistic practices or upholding a set of rules. Islam doesn't care if you believe in Allah because faith in him isn't necessary. What's important is to follow the five pillars. Jews also don't care for your personal faith in JHWH. They care whether you lead a cosher life or not. A brutal deity demands obedience, not faith. The theodicee is only important in Christianity as it holds the belief that God is all-loving. It is not an argument against the existence of God per se since he might simply be a detached being that simply doesn't give a shit about you or he might be someone who specifically put you on a path of atheism so he can later torture you for being an ignorant fuck.
>>326915
>>326923
What do you think I'm sort of pussyhole?
I'm not afraid of your imaginary threats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc
And if (in the incredibly unlikely event) your god really exists and is the nasty, badass evil son of a gun, like you claim, then he might rape your puny little ass just for the keks and reward me for standing up to him.
>>326981
>What do you think I'm sort of pussyhole?
Yes
>I'm not afraid of your imaginary threats.
As if that matters in the slightest
>And if (in the incredibly unlikely event) your god really exists and is the nasty, badass evil son of a gun, like you claim, then he might rape your puny little ass just for the keks and reward me for standing up to him
That's possible too
>>326935
>slam doesn't care if you believe in Allah because faith in him isn't necessary
Except that's wrong you fucking retard
>>326999
>That's possible too
And then there we have it.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
>>313143
God is real and he hates us.
>>327006
>Thanks for agreeing with me.
On what?
>>327025
That you have no idea what your retarded, evil god, would do, if on the off chance he might even exist.
And thats why Im a Daoist
I dont believe in a God, I believe in the beauty of nature, and how everything just goes its way. Most of the religions before the big jewing of Abraham believed in that, even the Nords said the Gods are assholes, they just reward you with Valhalla for a moderate time because they cannot kill the Titans themselves. And after Ragnarök everything burns anyways.
After war comes peace, after peace comes war, if you actively take a stance. The americans wanted the oil of the middle east and the West tried to enslave the muslimic east. Now the people there declared war against us. The second world war started because Germany was treated unfair after World War I, and their doings were as terrible as what was done to them. Everything is a a skipping-rope and will swing in every direction. If you dont stop to swing it. Their is no winning move to achieve peace, the only right thing is to stop playing and just enjoing life and the beauty of existence
>>327013
That claim has literally dominated the conversation for the last hour m8.
>>327075
I think we have a pretty good idea brah.
>>327075
>That you have no idea what your retarded, evil god, would do, if on the off chance he might even exist.
The word was "possible", not "likely"
>>327100
Really?
>>327114
yep
It's in the Bible.
:3
>>327108
>The word was "possible", not "likely"
What are you basing this calculation of likelihood on?
Your own bottom?
>>327124
>What are you basing this calculation of likelihood on?
Personal experience.
>>327121
>>327142
Hey buddy. Did you know I rose from the dead last week, then an angel came to me and gave me some special knowledge.
Wait, what? Don't you want to hear about my personal experience, it's very authoritative as a source.
Don't you want to hear about the time I met Hitler in the bath tub?
>blaming god for the faults of satan and sinful flesh
atheists at it again
>>327177
>Don't you want to hear about my personal experience
No.
But i'm not asking you to believe anything based on my experience. This is just what i happen to believe.
It's entirely possible that i'm wrong, that god doesn't exist, or that he's an evil asshole who will punish me and reward you. I could be wrong about a great number of things, thus is the realm of human experience.
But the exact same thing could be said of you.
Your 2nd hand positivist argumentation is tired and boring.
>>313143
Agnostic here
do you have proof?
burden of proof
phrase of burden
1.
the obligation to prove one's assertion.
Unless you are agnostic
The burden of proof is on both the religious and the atheist
>inb4 atheism=agnosticism
a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Dictionaries are your friend
>inb4 atheist damagecontrol
Agnosticism is mutually exclusive from atheism.
>Agnostic doesn't have anything to do with or describe anything about belief
>I don't care what the dictionary says I'm using my own definition
>autism
"Agnostic atheist" is just a new atheist attempt to hide behind agnosticism weak wordplay.
To believe something is to accept it as true or valid. In order to do this, you must have knowledge of it. Thus, belief always requires knowledge.
New atheists are really trying to hide behind agnosticism. There's an atheism site, atheism.org that literally says "you can't trust dictionaries to define atheism".
>>327308
You don't seem to quite understand what the problem of evil is. I would suggest you look it up before pretending to be an agnostic and trying to start the agnostic vs atheist argument.
>>327234
>It's entirely possible that i'm wrong, that god doesn't exist, or that he's an evil asshole who will punish me and reward you. I could be wrong about a great number of things, thus is the realm of human experience.
Not really an answer to the problem of evil is it mate?
>>327396
>Not really an answer to the problem of evil is it mate?
Why does someone who doesn't believe in god even use the word evil? You realize evil is a spook, right?
>>327396
>accusing me of pretending to be agnostic
>trusting your senses
>having an unshakable faith that you're not being deceived on a cosmological level
Well okay, I guess that's one kind of religion.
>>327467
To elaborate on my last post
>I'll work off the assumption that reality is real until something proves otherwise.
Well that's the whole idea: that something may never materialize. What does proof within the context of a lie even mean. It's like somebody in your dream assuring you that you're awake. If our universe were an elaborate Conway's Game of Life, and its creator/s interjected to explain themselves, we'd be no more or less knowledgeable, because we're on the inside looking out. You're a radical empiricist. That's not a value judgment nor does it imply anything negative, but it's something you should at least admit to yourself.
>jesus died for your sins
I never got the proper reasoning on this statement. If god created everything, including free will, then how come its a sin to exercise free will? I'm using the definition of sin as "acts against god."
Can someone explain this?
>>326507
You can still believe in him. Something isn't real just because you like it or not real because you don't like it.
>>327508
It's impossible to make sense of a fairytale that deliberately doesn't make sense and calls it a divine mystery
>>328245
>>313143
If you're trying to downgrade atheism, you shouldn't use a hot girl with a sword.
>>328319
Oh my, that man is very fat. Is that you?
>>313160
Maybe god created the world for leukemia.
>>328669
Maybe explanations being ad hoc is a good reason to not bother with god
