An Atheist Christmas

[2dimes]

The problem with arguing "God is good vs. malevolent." is we can't know enough of the reasons behind everything he does or does not do, to or for us to understand the whole picture.

Example, "Why does he let babies starve, if he could provide them with food?" I don't think there are very many humans that think that's ok. It could be a way to challenge us to think, "He's a jerk that doesn't care, therefore he can't be a loving God." in order to cause people not to believe in him as Satan said he could do.

You could say the same about me because I have never done anything for those babies. There are people that give money or organize an effort to take food to Africa to help starving people have something to eat. I have not. I could but I've been too busy being selfish. My wife spends most of her money feeding our own kids and buying them x-boxes, ipods, GPS, remote control cars, BB guns, another Television.... For all I know I am a jerk.

Maybe there is a higher purpose behind the lives of those babies that I don't know about. Maybe it's because the mothers are praying to the wrong gods. If you ask someone else for spare change, I'm not going to run across the street to give you some, but if you cross the street to ask me I will.

[niMic]

And that is a good and just god how?

[2dimes]

And that is a good and just god how?

Because when the dead babies arrive in heaven they get wit da hos and a ton of bling yo!

[pimpdave]

[2dimes]

I think that chart is deceptive because God is more powerful so Satan could only kill a person because God allowed him. God sould get the 10 added to his total.

[Army of GOD]

Good and evil are relative

[b.k. barunt]

but atheists tend to ignore both the positive effects of religion and the negative effects of a lack of religion.

not saying other worldviews don't do the same thing, but it's too idealistic. there's a reason religion has been a feature of many different civilizations across many millennia. and it's not because of people in a smoke-filled room looking to control the uneducated masses. religion benefits society.

That's utter bunk. Because people do something repeatedly that makes it inherently good? The perception is that religion benefits society. How can you accurately guage if there's a benefit if you don't have access to a world where no religion exists, where it hasn't permeated into every crack of existence infecting everything like a virus.

Now, I must concede that if there is a creator, and He has actually inspired religion, than of course it benefits society.

Why? this creator could be a total jackoff who just likes fucking with people. Or religion could be his, or its, test, where the people who pass are the people who reject it.

Wow. Most of your posts seem to indicate a bit of intelligence so i'll assume you've imbibed in an excess of holiday cheer on this one. To disbelieve in a supreme being is understandable, seeing that many consider it a mark of superior intellect and "free thinking", but to assert that if there is a supreme being he "could be a total jackoff" is something that defies rational thought - that's the nicest description i could think of for such a conclusion. To be honest, it doesn't strike me as a conclusion at all, and is reminiscent of times back on the playground when the bad boys (yeah ok i was in that group) would try to outdo each other on the most outrageous and obnoxious bit of rebellious blather.

Because the evidence for any kind of supreme being is somewhere beween negligible and non-existent, its difficult to imagine what would make any particular version thereof any more likely than any other.You might not like the terminology 'total jackoff',or the FSM,as is more often used to illustrate this point, but I think there is a valid point being made here by Aradhus,which deserves consideration and should not be dismissed so quickly.

Do i really need to point out the absurdity of calling a "supreme being" a jackoff? A supreme being determines and defines reality. Does the creation question the creator? Such arrogance boggles the mind. Jesus told the Pharisees (religious hypocrites of the day) that they were like children playing in the marketplace saying "we have piped to you and you have not danced; we have mourned and you have not wept" (Matthew 11:17 and Luke 7:32).

As far as "evidence for a supreme being" goes, you might want to look up the word "supreme". Aradhus wasn't questioning His existence, he was questioning His character if He did exist. Like i said, look up the word "supreme" in your dictionary, then ask someone on the street (the Brits have the best understanding of such but they use the word "wanker") to define the term "jackoff". I would say that the word "supreme" and the term "jackoff" are diametrically opposed. A "jackoff" is a loser, a failure and a wannabe pretender to what he is not. How can a "supreme being" translate as such? Sorry, but i really can't give such a shallow bit of idiocy any serious consideration, and i have to say that only a jackoff would come up with such.

[Aradhus]

You're kinda foisting your assumptions onto me, Bk. I don't assume that if this universe is created by a being that that being is the most powerful being that exists. Just taking a look at how things work in this little universe I think that it's almost a safe bet to assume that if god exists he's at best incompetent, at worst malevolent.

[b.k. barunt]

You're kinda foisting your assumptions onto me, Bk. I don't assume that if this universe is created by a being that that being is the most powerful being that exists. Just taking a look at how things work in this little universe I think that it's almost a safe bet to assume that if god exists he's at best incompetent, at worst malevolent.

The meaning of "supreme being" is not my assumption - like i said, check out "supreme" in the dictionary. A "supreme being" would in fact - by the literal meaning of the word - be the most powerful in the universe. Supreme would be all knowing, all powerful, etc. "Supreme" and "incompetent" are pretty much diametrically opposed. Malevolent is another thing altogether.

[Aradhus]

Supreme being was your phrase, I never said that.

[b.k. barunt]

Meh, your word was "creator" - a being who was able to create this world would not be a supreme being? Mmmkay.

[Army of GOD]

Not all "Supreme" things are inherently good

[chang50]

Not all "Supreme" things are inherently good

I never ever thought this would happen but AoG and I agree,there is nothing to stop a supreme being being supremely anything it wants to be.The manifold contradictions within the concept of the omnimax creator make it logically incoherent IMHO.By omnimax I obviously mean,omnipotent,omniscient,omnipresent and omnibenevolent.

[chang50]

but atheists tend to ignore both the positive effects of religion and the negative effects of a lack of religion.

not saying other worldviews don't do the same thing, but it's too idealistic. there's a reason religion has been a feature of many different civilizations across many millennia. and it's not because of people in a smoke-filled room looking to control the uneducated masses. religion benefits society.

That's utter bunk. Because people do something repeatedly that makes it inherently good? The perception is that religion benefits society. How can you accurately guage if there's a benefit if you don't have access to a world where no religion exists, where it hasn't permeated into every crack of existence infecting everything like a virus.

Now, I must concede that if there is a creator, and He has actually inspired religion, than of course it benefits society. [/quo


Why? this creator could be a total jackoff who just likes fucking with people. Or religion could be his, or its, test, where the people who pass are the people who reject it.

Wow. Most of your posts seem to indicate a bit of intelligence so i'll assume you've imbibed in an excess of holiday cheer on this one. To disbelieve in a supreme being is understandable, seeing that many consider it a mark of superior intellect and "free thinking", but to assert that if there is a supreme being he "could be a total jackoff" is something that defies rational thought - that's the nicest description i could think of for such a conclusion. To be honest, it doesn't strike me as a conclusion at all, and is reminiscent of times back on the playground when the bad boys (yeah ok i was in that group) would try to outdo each other on the most outrageous and obnoxious bit of rebellious blather.

Because the evidence for any kind of supreme being is somewhere beween negligible and non-existent, its difficult to imagine what would make any particular version thereof any more likely than any other.You might not like the terminology 'total jackoff',or the FSM,as is more often used to illustrate this point, but I think there is a valid point being made here by Aradhus,which deserves consideration and should not be dismissed so quickly.

Do i really need to point out the absurdity of calling a "supreme being" a jackoff? A supreme being determines and defines reality. Does the creation question the creator? Such arrogance boggles the mind. Jesus told the Pharisees (religious hypocrites of the day) that they were like children playing in the marketplace saying "we have piped to you and you have not danced; we have mourned and you have not wept" (Matthew 11:17 and Luke 7:32).

As far as "evidence for a supreme being" goes, you might want to look up the word "supreme". Aradhus wasn't questioning His existence, he was questioning His character if He did exist. Like i said, look up the word "supreme" in your dictionary, then ask someone on the street (the Brits have the best understanding of such but they use the word "wanker") to define the term "jackoff". I would say that the word "supreme" and the term "jackoff" are diametrically opposed. A "jackoff" is a loser, a failure and a wannabe pretender to what he is not. How can a "supreme being" translate as such? Sorry, but i really can't give such a shallow bit of idiocy any serious consideration, and i have to say that only a jackoff would come up with such.

Hey knock off the personal stuff,I've been nothing but courteous to you,stick to the issues please.There are profound philosophical questions here that greater minds than ours have raised and someone confident in their position would not object to.So what makes any version of the supreme creator any more likely than,say the one I just invented five minutes ago?Do not reply if you cannot answer a respectful philosophical question repectfully.

[b.k. barunt]

My reference to a "shallow bit of idiocy" was not directed at you, as you did not make the "jackoff" comment. I've really been trying to curb my my irascible tendencies, but the "jackoff" comment was a bit to much. It was also way beneath Aradhus' intelligence, which made it insulting. The profound issues that you refer to are certainly not attained to by such comments. Notice that i use the word "comment" in place of "observation".

One might opine that the supreme being is malevolent, benevolent, or a mix of the two. Any "profound philosophical questions" through the ages have pretty much stayed within those parameters. If you seriously think that the term "jack off" could apply to a being who created the universe, then we're on different planes of perception. I stand by my observation that the comment was a shallow bit of idiocy.

Btw, not sure what you mean by "omnibenevolent" - never heard that term before.

[pimpdave]

Pretty sure omnibenevolent isn't a real word.

[chang50]

Pretty sure omnibenevolent isn't a real word.

The Oxford English dictionary,defines omnibenevolence as,"unlimited or infinite benevolence".Although I've seen it used and used it myself a few times I looked it up just to be sure

[chang50]

My reference to a "shallow bit of idiocy" was not directed at you, as you did not make the "jackoff" comment. I've really been trying to curb my my irascible tendencies, but the "jackoff" comment was a bit to much. It was also way beneath Aradhus' intelligence, which made it insulting. The profound issues that you refer to are certainly not attained to by such comments. Notice that i use the word "comment" in place of "observation".

One might opine that the supreme being is malevolent, benevolent, or a mix of the two. Any "profound philosophical questions" through the ages have pretty much stayed within those parameters. If you seriously think that the term "jack off" could apply to a being who created the universe, then we're on different planes of perception. I stand by my observation that the comment was a shallow bit of idiocy.

Btw, not sure what you mean by "omnibenevolent" - never heard that term before.

Nothing wrong with being on different planes of perception,it's what makes life interesting.I wouldn't have used the words "jack off" myself,but I still maintain we can know so little about any alleged supreme creator that all speculation about their naures is just about equally absurd.Apologies if I was a bit thinskinned,its a fault of mine.

[MeDeFe]

Anyway, taking a definition that says god is good, and from that concluding that god (should this being exist) is good, is circular reasoning at its finest.

So, bk, I'm not buying it.

[AAFitz]

Meh, your word was "creator" - a being who was able to create this world would not be a supreme being? Mmmkay.

Well again, while we may consider a being who is able to create this world supreme, and therefore a God, and perfectly good, that is simply because of the vast chasm in our abilities.

An ant might view your capabilities as Godlike as well, given what you can do with its environment, but unless you disagree, youre probably not a God, or Perfectly Good.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that its necessary for the creator of this universe to be Good. Given the amount of evil that permeates it, especially with the highest form of life we know of, its actually not even a reasonable assumption from a pragmatic standpoint.

The only evidence that we have that there is a God, or that he is Good, is that people have said he is.

People saying anything is not evidence of anything, except that they said it...and even then, it is often mistranslated.

The only real proof we have of anything, either philosophically, religiously or scientifically, is that we are here, the universe does exist, and we simply do not know exactly how yet.

Any assumptions of Good, Bad, or Ugly Gods are assumptions, as they always have been.

[2dimes]

Again this over simplifies things but is the direction I'm suggesting.

Good and evil are relative

I'm not thinking relative, I'm thinking more we can't see everything involved in running the universe so we think something is evil because we can't know the whole purpose behind it.

Like rehab, it can be really horrible to take away the substance a person is addicted to yet they must in order to save the person's life because they are being poisoned.

[Symmetry]

Again this over simplifies things but is the direction I'm suggesting.

Good and evil are relative

I'm not thinking relative, I'm thinking more we can't see everything involved in running the universe so we think something is evil because we can't know the whole purpose behind it.

Like rehab, it can be really horrible to take away the substance a person is addicted to yet they must in order to save the person's life because they are being poisoned.

Surely the same argument can be applied in the other direction equally, Assuming that a God or gods exist, they could equally be pure evil and we merely don't see their purpose. I'm not making that argument here, but do thing it's a bit weak as a justification for arguing that God is good. It could equally work for an argument that God is evil, ambivalent, or whatever else.

The only evidence we have, further assuming that he is omnipotent and omniscient, is how He acts.

[b.k. barunt]

Anyway, taking a definition that says god is good, and from that concluding that god (should this being exist) is good, is circular reasoning at its finest.

So, bk, I'm not buying it.

My point is that a supreme being, i.e. one who created everything would define reality seeing that He creates it. For us, the creations, to attempt to contradict His definition of good and evil would be rather stupid and certainly arrogant. If a parent tells a child that it is wrong/bad to hit his siblings and the child refuses to accept such, the child is punished.

Take the human body for example. What if the white corpuscles suddenly decided that it was bad to fight diseases? What if they deemed the harmful bacteria good? For the creation to argue with the creator is madness. In short, the creator has power over His creation - whatever is good for the creator is good and whatever is bad for the creator is bad. If the creation becomes bad for its creator, simple logic would dictate that He would destroy the creation and start over. The Scriptures use the example of a potter (Isaiah 64:8, Jeremiah 18:4, Romans 9:21), who would naturally have power over the pots that he creates. What the potter desires in a pot is good and what he desires not is bad. The pots are created or destroyed according to his will. So yeah, in such a reality you could definitely say that God is omnibenevolent. Circular logic?

[Symmetry]

Anyway, taking a definition that says god is good, and from that concluding that god (should this being exist) is good, is circular reasoning at its finest.

So, bk, I'm not buying it.

My point is that a supreme being, i.e. one who created everything would define reality seeing that He creates it. For us, the creations, to attempt to contradict His definition of good and evil would be rather stupid and certainly arrogant. If a parent tells a child that it is wrong/bad to hit his siblings and the child refuses to accept such, the child is punished.

Take the human body for example. What if the white corpuscles suddenly decided that it was bad to fight diseases? What if they deemed the harmful bacteria good? For the creation to argue with the creator is madness. In short, the creator has power over His creation - whatever is good for the creator is good and whatever is bad for the creator is bad. If the creation becomes bad for its creator, simple logic would dictate that He would destroy the creation and start over. The Scriptures use the example of a potter (Isaiah 64:8, Jeremiah 18:4, Romans 9:21), who would naturally have power over the pots that he creates. What the potter desires in a pot is good and what he desires not is bad. The pots are created or destroyed according to his will. So yeah, in such a reality you could definitely say that God is omnibenevolent. Circular logic?

But surely that argument would logically allow a parent the right to kill their children if they were disobedient? Pots are one thing, a living being another.

I can understand that you hold God to a different standard, but the analogy is flawed. A parent has certain rights to punish their own child, but killing them isn't one of them.

[b.k. barunt]

Again this over simplifies things but is the direction I'm suggesting.

Good and evil are relative

I'm not thinking relative, I'm thinking more we can't see everything involved in running the universe so we think something is evil because we can't know the whole purpose behind it.

Like rehab, it can be really horrible to take away the substance a person is addicted to yet they must in order to save the person's life because they are being poisoned.

Surely the same argument can be applied in the other direction equally, Assuming that a God or gods exist, they could equally be pure evil and we merely don't see their purpose. I'm not making that argument here, but do thing it's a bit weak as a justification for arguing that God is good. It could equally work for an argument that God is evil, ambivalent, or whatever else.

The only evidence we have, further assuming that he is omnipotent and omniscient, is how He acts.

True. However, God's mind is infinite and ours is finite. To argue with what God says is good or bad is like trying to beat an opponent at chess when he can clearly see every possible variation for the next hundred moves, and that's an understatement. There is no way that we with our finite minds can possibly comprehend the purpose of an infinite God. We live in a finite reality. God's dwellingplace is in eternity where everything happens at once. Jesus is referred to as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8), so before man was created Jesus had already been crucified for man's shortcomings.

We cannot possibly comprehend God's purpose (Romans 11:33 & 34). That is where faith comes in, which in essence is simply assuming that God, being God, knows what He's doing and therefore we must trust and obey Him. I argued with Him/questioned Him once. I came out of the service in 1970 a mental and emotional wreck and He put me back together and gave me a new life. After following Him for 14 years i became totally disillusioned by the corruption of the church (no not just the one i was going to). I told God i couldn't understand why the hell He allowed His church to become such a mess and walked away from the ministry. He wouldn't let me walk away and so i ran - not a real bright idea. I became the antithesis of what i knew to be the truth and lived as a madman for years. I can't question the goodness and love of God because after i rejected and betrayed Him He still has given me another chance. That's the "evidence" that i go by.