Without reading anything, I'd just like to suggest to everyone to "try" the different walks of life be it atheism or a religion. Discussing it on internet forums, or even in public gatherings makes no sense to me. It's something that just comes from the heart. When I start following my religion I feel in peace. My religion makes more and more sense to me.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
I did... as a kid I recall school teaching Christianity as if it were fact, and I bought it because I thought schools were supposed to teach you things, not tell you unsubstantiated nonsense, or subjective truths. I believed it with all my heart, I prayed, I worried about whether I was upsetting God in any way, and I worried for others in this way, etc. etc.
As I reached my teens, and started questioning things more, life as viewed through the lens of religion started to make less and less sense, until I just couldn't say I believed anymore. It's impossible for me to "try" religion because I would be lying to myself.
If there is a God, he's certainly gone to some length to make a number of people who just feel completely unsatisfied with the worldview it provides... Some religious factions would have me believe that you can choose to have faith, but I know deep inside that I just don't buy it. Why on earth would God make me this way if he/she/it exists?
Before, you were arguing that God has sat back and watched too many centuries of suffering and death; now you're arguing death is a good thing and since death inevitably involves some suffering (even if it not for the person who dies, at least those who love them), you're giving the OK to that too. Very strange to be angry about God giving you what you want.
You can get back to me on how it's possible for a person who loves death to criticise God for not putting an end to it quickly enough. I suppose if you find plenty of wriggle room to ignore the holes in your favourite arguments, you'll find a way to square the circle in your own mind here.
Your arguments are at best tangential and often largely pointless since they all proceed from the assumption that god exists.
Still introducing red herrings to avoid the flaw in your favourite argument?
I was like you till the teens but now I'm back to my religion. I just went into it deeper and deeper and at the end of the day we all chose to have a certain way of life. It's really difficult to explain. To me it just makes sense. Then there are things that to me make no sense in religion but I have blind faith in them because of the power of the things that do.
To each their own.
What red herrings? What flaws? Go ahead and debunk Epicurus right now if you're man enough.
Done it before multiple times in this thread, and you keep introducing the same red herring about my argument (even though I haven't formulated an argument) proceeding from the assumption that God exists. As I've said before, Epicurus' argument for the logical incompatibility of the existence of God with suffering and evil isn't a serious attempt. I've already demonstrated to you that, in the hypothetical scenario God is able to stop suffering and evil but unwilling he is not necessarily malevolent because he might have good reasons for allowing it (which, while not necessary to refute this particular argument, I believe he does, and I've outlined why and how it is an act of mercy on God's part to temporarily allow for the existence of evil). That's all that needs to be demonstrated to refute the argument because it demonstrates that the jump in logic is unjustified. That's enough for any reasonable person to desist with that formulation of the argument. Not you though, pete, because you're apparently too thick to see it.
Are there any good reasons for not stopping suffering and evil when you're able to?
Whether or not I can offer a reason is beside the point because it would still be plausible that God would have perfectly good reasons I just wasn't able to think of.
As it happens, I do have one very good reason. Mercy. If God deals with evil and suffering now, that means he has to deal with humanity now because humanity is evil. God has an appointed hour which only he knows when he will deal with all of it. but for now, we live under grace. Each breath you take is a mercy of God because he should, by all rights, snatch the air from your lungs this instant.
Because God has his reasons for these things. Brilliant. You've not debunked anthing, HVR.
Attenborough himself put it that he didn't believe a conscientous God would create such a thing as little parasites that eat out and destroy the eyes of small children in Africa. That doesn't get answered by such vague replies.
Attenborough himself put it that he didn't believe a conscientous God would create such a thing as little parasites that eat out and destroy the eyes of small children in Africa. That doesn't get answered by such vague replies.
You're another idiot. People who persist in perverting their own sense of logic are utter fools.
The reason logic doesn't answer your second point is because it's not a logical argument, but an emotional position you share with David Attenborough.
Come on. I've two guns. One for each of ya'.
Quoting Tombstone won't save you buddy.
Hah, geez. At least I have enough class to not resort to the word idiot in my first couple of replies. There's already a context and a slew of responses belonging mainly to petestorey in this thread on this. I didn't think I needed to restate the whole question and its logical indictments.
Attenborough just seemed to have stated a perfectly strong case for posing the question why and wanting a better answer than "cuz God might have a good reason". If you'll accept that then either your standards in this argument are too low, or you're just accepting it blindly off unstated or invalid premises.
Yeah we can discuss this without the insults.
When a fool persists in his folly, what is left but to declare him a fool?
Based off my weighing in on the Epicurean case once?
Yeah, way to give me a shot in not having "idiot" thrown at me.
You're not worth my time, I'm focusing my attention to the Arsenal - City match.
You're right about that. Gratefully, Christ saved me and you need to get saved, too. Don't be a fool.
I explained why that formulation of the argument isn't logically valid. You simply declared I hadn't, hence you're foolish for perverting your own sense of logic to argue an indefensible position. David Attenborough needs to get saved, too.
I explained why that formulation of the argument isn't logically valid. You simply declared I hadn't, hence you're foolish for perverting your own sense of logic to argue an indefensible position. David Attenborough needs to get saved, too.
Yeah, as if I'm thinking you're anything but a troll, right now? Enjoy being saved, or whatever you really are under the troll guise, matey. Find better things to do.
If you're offended you can use the report function and we'll have a look at it. If you're simply frustrated by an argument then we can't help you. Just move on to another thread.
I don't understand your question.
I've demonstrated why the argument's logically invalid, and it is, no matter the tears and temper tantrums of its supporters.
It's a nice cover for paedophiles that can't get into politics.
You've just moved the goalposts (altered the premisses) which is the only way to 'refute' Epicurus.
Delusional. "Then he is malevolent," does not follow from "is he able, but not willing?"
But obviously, i moved the goalposts.
There's no point to Bonehead cavemen religions anymore. You see all the conflict in the muslim world because the people follow these bonehead useless books from thousands of years ago. In the Catholic Tradition the Vatican is desperately trying to change many out dated beliefs to try and recover many of the dwindling church goers to try and boost the bank balance. The Jews along with the Muslims and Christians have been brain washed into thinking that their path is the only true path to God and this is where the problems starts as that creates a sense of superiority which is essentially Ego which leads to looking down on ones neighbors and conflict. The Muslim, Christian and Jewish religions were essentially designed to keep primitive people even more primitive and they have greatly succeeded in what they were set out to do.
The only spiritual paths that ever got it right were the paths people followed before bonehead religions were invented such as Celtic druidism and Native Indian paths and things like that. In these paths there was always an elder (which means old soul) who had the ability to recieve information from the spirit world so that the tribes would know how to behave properly and how to live in harmony with nature. The whole point of organized religion was to break this link that man had with the spirit world so that he could be easily manipulated and kept ignorant and stupid as has been proven in countries where organized religion still controls everything such as Israel, The Muslim World and states in the USA where you get those fundamental Christians that neer shut up about the devil and who believe all other religions apart from the Christian faith were created by the devil and people who follow them are lost souls that worship the devil!!
Buddhism is the only modern day path that really gets it right.
The muslim, Christian and Jewish religions have no place in the modern world as they have too many ancient hateful beliefs that serve no purpose in the modern world and all of these religions will be wiped off the face of the earth within 100 years as the more people start to wake up to the real truth that these ancient religions are worthless which has already happened in many open minded places such as California and many parts of the USA, Many parts of Europe, parts of Brazil and south america etc
The only spiritual paths that ever got it right were the paths people followed before bonehead religions were invented such as Celtic druidism and Native Indian paths and things like that. In these paths there was always an elder (which means old soul) who had the ability to recieve information from the spirit world so that the tribes would know how to behave properly and how to live in harmony with nature. The whole point of organized religion was to break this link that man had with the spirit world so that he could be easily manipulated and kept ignorant and stupid as has been proven in countries where organized religion still controls everything such as Israel, The Muslim World and states in the USA where you get those fundamental Christians that neer shut up about the devil and who believe all other religions apart from the Christian faith were created by the devil and people who follow them are lost souls that worship the devil!!
Buddhism is the only modern day path that really gets it right.
The muslim, Christian and Jewish religions have no place in the modern world as they have too many ancient hateful beliefs that serve no purpose in the modern world and all of these religions will be wiped off the face of the earth within 100 years as the more people start to wake up to the real truth that these ancient religions are worthless which has already happened in many open minded places such as California and many parts of the USA, Many parts of Europe, parts of Brazil and south america etc
Well if you boil religion down to it's main ideas it's mostly good. It's when the followers get all nutty and start telling everyone else what to do that I have an issue. If you want to be good to everybody, wash leper's feet and take in poor people then go right ahead. Just don't tell me that I have to do it too.
Of course it's malevolent to have omnipotent power and twiddle your thumbs while people die of Ebola.Delusional. "Then he is malevolent," does not follow from "is he able, but not willing?"
But obviously, i moved the goalposts.
It's more cnutish to actually create ebola and cancer.
Should religion as a whole be judged on the minority who abuse or exploit it for whatever reason (paedophilia, war, knocking at peoples houses etc)? Without religion, wouldn't people who want to/can do those things, still do them anyway?
People would still do evil things but religion gives them a justification (even though it requires a significant warping of the true tenets).
That's your speculation about what God is doing. This is actually the underlying problem when it comes to the logical problem of evil. All the different formulations of the argument make claims that we have no way of verifying.
Nobody swallows the pill of suffering gladly. Christ sweated blood in the Garden of Gethsemane out of extreme anguish for what he was about to suffer, but it was the glory set before him that sustained him. Christ went through a torment you and I can't even begin to imagine. Try to imagine knowing every excruciating and humiliating detail of your death by crucifixion before it even happens. You can't, of course, because you aren't the Son of God.
I know the Lord cares more about those who suffer due to cancer, ebola, etc, than you do because he actually knows what they're going through. The simple fact is, though, the Lord is more concerned (rightly so) with the eternal and it is more important that a person repents and believes on Christ and live in glory for eternity than they live a full, healthy life that spans a relative blink of the eye compared to eternity, and then go to hell a depraved sinner forever.
At the end of the day, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that God is malevolent and you simply don't have the means to do so. You're a worm compared to God.
Possibly... The great thing about religion, though, is that you can get people to indoctrinate children, who are predisposed to taking everything on faith when trusted people around them utter things. It can help build in a mentality that can rush into these heinous acts, believing they're doing good all the while. Humanity as a whole might be innately so wrapped up in the notion of the threatening "other" that there will always be these sort of things, but so long as religion at times facilitates things that are horrendous enough to clearly eclipse the good that they do, it is worth criticising the notion.
Some of them yes.
Ask a different question: Would people who believe that holy war is a religious duty and that martyrdom leads to paradise, and blow themselves up in crowds of civilians because of it, still blow themselves up without those religious beliefs? Would people who believe that condom use is sinful and preach this in the most AIDS-infested countries on Earth, still do this without the belief that condom use is sinful? Not to mention the tribalistic aspect of religion, which is divisive and breeds conflict in itself, never mind the actual doctrines.
I struggle to believe those that want to would not just find other ways to justify it in their own minds (if the portrayed justification is even genuine). I think these people are the real culprits, and it's o' so easy to exploit the poorest, most uneducated people living in poor conditions. Religion is just a vehicle they use to achieve it. I really doubt the things religion gets the blame for the most in this world would suddenly stop without it. Just my own view though.
Maybe I'm being naive, but to me there are many more motivating factors to a martyrdom than something so simple. I would imagine one would have to be completely uneducated (thick, crudely), completely filled with hatred, completely manipulated by someone and completely desperate, to blow themselves up. The '50 virgins in paradise' line seems a bit.. Sky News to me - just trying to slap a simplistic and bite-size somewhat logical-enough reason to the viewer. As far as I'm aware 99.9% of *insert vilified religion* do not blow themselves up, and I'm making a big assumption that it doesn't say to kill civilians in the *insert religious scripture*. Not that that is what you're saying, but I think the religious factor is completely over represented (in general, not particularly by yourself).
I agree that anything that is divisive can only lead to or encourage conflict, but you can say that about a lot of things like countries, political beliefs, even football teams. Surely this tells us more about human nature than the actual divisive tool, though obviously a world with less means to divide people is a better world so I can certainly accept that point.
Even a worm is superior to something that doesn't exist, that cannot exist since it is a logical absurdity.
It doesn't help that the worm is delusional and doesn't understand how logical proofs work.
I'll leave you to your idol, Euclid, now.
*Epicurus.