richardhutnik said: Accela said: Yes, you have DarkMatter and Christopher Hitchens.  In this, you see two examples of two atheists who then argue how God is evil.  This is what i am talking about.  When an individual spends their entire cognitive being railing against God as being both evil and not real, and doesn't bother to follow up by looking at what part of humans is the real culprit here (and propose solutions), they are inconsistent in their view of things, and really not serious about dealing with issues of evil.  Such an individual proposes NOTHING to make humanity better at all, just operating undet the belief that you remove God from cognitive thought, and this alone will result in everyone being good.  Considering that atheism isn't anything but a negation, it still leaves behind all the elements that had made this construct of a human mind seen as horrid, still around, to propose other things.  You had, for example, communist nations in the 20th century doing historically horrible killing of humans, mass oppression, and other travesties, while not having god.  In that, you had worship of a human leader on top, replacing God.  Just eliminating God didn't make anything better.

Aside from the fact that you don't seem to know very much about Christopher Hitchens, you show a fundamental lack of understanding of theocratic rule (which, by the way, Hitchens was vehemently opposed to and spoke out against).

Look at Kim Jong-il, one example of your "communist" nation. He said his first time golfing he made 7 hole in ones and this was widely accepted as truth.

I'll mention Hitler only to remind you that the footsoldiers in those brigades were religious people. Theocrats are capable of taking advantage of the credulity of the religious...

Atheism isn't a proposition of anything. This is why many atheists, such as Sam Harris, are advocating Secular Humanism. It actually is a philosophy whereby the goal is to minimize the suffering of all humans.

Finally, the argument isn't against God...it's against dogma...please understand the difference.

Intelligentsia said: richardhutnik said: Accela said: Yes, you have DarkMatter and Christopher Hitchens.  In this, you see two examples of two atheists who then argue how God is evil.  This is what i am talking about.  When an individual spends their entire cognitive being railing against God as being both evil and not real, and doesn't bother to follow up by looking at what part of humans is the real culprit here (and propose solutions), they are inconsistent in their view of things, and really not serious about dealing with issues of evil.  Such an individual proposes NOTHING to make humanity better at all, just operating undet the belief that you remove God from cognitive thought, and this alone will result in everyone being good.  Considering that atheism isn't anything but a negation, it still leaves behind all the elements that had made this construct of a human mind seen as horrid, still around, to propose other things.  You had, for example, communist nations in the 20th century doing historically horrible killing of humans, mass oppression, and other travesties, while not having god.  In that, you had worship of a human leader on top, replacing God.  Just eliminating God didn't make anything better. Aside from the fact that you don't seem to know very much about Christopher Hitchens, you show a fundamental lack of understanding of theocratic rule (which, by the way, Hitchens was vehemently opposed to and spoke out against). Look at Kim Jong-il, one example of your "communist" nation. He said his first time golfing he made 7 hole in ones and this was widely accepted as truth. I'll mention Hitler only to remind you that the footsoldiers in those brigades were religious people. Theocrats are capable of taking advantage of the credulity of the religious... Atheism isn't a proposition of anything. This is why many atheists, such as Sam Harris, are advocating Secular Humanism. It actually is a philosophy whereby the goal is to minimize the suffering of all humans. Finally, the argument isn't against God...it's against dogma...please understand the difference.

There is anti-theism:

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

http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Antitheist.htm

"...I am not so much an atheist as an anti-theist. I am, in other words, not one of those unbelievers who wishes that they had faith, or that they could believe. I am, rather, someone who is delighted that there is absolutely no persuasive evidence for the existence of any of mankind's many thousands of past and present deities."
- Christopher Hitchens, Is Christianity Good for the World? 

I say I'm an antitheist because I think it'd be rather awful if it was true ... you would never have a waking or sleeping moment where you weren't being watched, and controlled, and supervised by some celestial entity from conception until, well, not even until your death because it's only after death when the real fun begins, isn't it? It'd be like living in North Korea."
- Christopher Hitchens, on the Sean Hannity show 

Christopher Hitchens declared himself an anti-theist.  This is more than just being opposed to organized religion.  It involves actively being opposed to God concept.  

And I did say that atheism isn't anything, and is a negation.  The typical default position would be seen as "secular humanism", which is the elevating of humans as the highest form and ultimate measure.  Then that ends up bring its own issues.

And then, you want to go into Hitler?  Then we get into Stalin, for whom, he did a lot of horrible things, without even naming the name of God.  You will see this happen over and over in Communist nations in the 20th centuries.  You got rid of God concept, or tried to, and ended up still having horrors that hadn't evern been historically, in the scale they were done.

You can see books like this going into detail on it:

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

 

And the argument isn't about dogma, it is about how the God concept does evil.  In the case of Hitchens, it was a war against the concept.

Jay520 said: Darev. Do you know the difference between (a) creating rules against already existing bad things. and (b) willfully creating bad things, and then later making rules against them. Human rulemakers represent (a). God represents (b). They are different. There, now stop with your flawed analogies.

Jay, my friend, it’s been a while. I was wondering when you were going to jump into the fray. Your particular brand of opinion has been missed,...well, not really, but you know what I mean, hopefully.

In response to your comment, you’re going backwards here, since I’ve already supposed that god is evil, just for argument sake of course. But my contention to that is, the fact of creating something evil doesn’t mean that you yourself are evil. For example, are saying that the people that created the A-bomb are evil? Is the guy that created the gun evil? What if creating that evil thing you saw it was in fact evil and decided that it shouldn’t be used for evil?

By the way, what is your definition of evil? Oh, and do you believe in God? Short answers, without your particular brand of BS will do please.

 

ultima said: DevilRising said: Claiming you know for a fact that god doesn't exist, that NO form of "god" or "gods" or "spirits" exist, is just as ignorant and small-minded as trying to claim that any other spiritual beliefs one might have, are "FOR SURE" the only correct beliefs. You can't "prove" there is a god, any more than you can "prove" there isn't. Making these kinds of arguments and sparking these kinds of debates......really serves no good purpose. So do you keep your mind open to the possibility of an omnipotent teapot with an infinitely long spout floating around somewhere in space?

 

Sure why not. I have my own beliefs, and I do personally happen to be a spiritual person. But I'm not religious, in any way shape or form. I think taking "belief" and turning it into "mass religion", especially of the "One God, One Truth" variety, has been one of the most horrific ideas mankind has ever had.

I take it by your tone and the jest in your comment, that you somehow think I'm ignorant or naive for being open to the idea of spiritual entities existing? If you believe they don't, that's fine. But true ignorance is claiming you know the only "Truth", and that anything anyone else believes that is different must be moronic drivel. I hope that's not why you said what you said, but if you were basically taking a crack at me for daring to suggest that there is no merit in saying one "knows" there is no "God", well.............that was pretty childish and ignorant itself, wouldn't you say?

 

As a bunch of grown, mature, intellectual adults, it would be pretty tragic indeed if most of us were too high handed enough to simply allow varying beliefs to co-exist. Atheists running around screaming at religious folks that "MAN YOU'RE A MORON, THERE IS NO GOD", is just as belligerent, ignorant, and destructive as it is for religious nuts to run around screaming at anyone with differing beliefs "MAN YOU'REA MORON, MY GOD IS THE ONLY GOD". It's two sides of the same, counterproductive and uncivilized coin.

damn i thought i logged in vgchartz..... i guess im in the vgchrizt section...

The Fury said: If God exists, why does he let many suffer so?

Because people have free will, and are allowed to make choices, whether they are good or poor choices.  People are also a product of their environment.

Screamapillar said: The Fury said: If God exists, why does he let many suffer so? Because people have free will, and are allowed to make choices, whether they are good or poor choices.  People are also a product of their environment.

Yeah, because sometimes it's a choice to live in a earthquake/tsunami zone or get cancer. Free will is great like that.

DaRev said: Jay520 said: Darev. Do you know the difference between (a) creating rules against already existing bad things. and (b) willfully creating bad things, and then later making rules against them. Human rulemakers represent (a). God represents (b). They are different. There, now stop with your flawed analogies. 1. In response to your comment, you’re going backwards here, since I’ve already supposed that god is evil, just for argument sake of course. 2. But my contention to that is, the fact of creating something evil doesn’t mean that you yourself are evil. 3. For example, are saying that the people that created the A-bomb are evil? Is the guy that created the gun evil? What if creating that evil thing you saw it was in fact evil and decided that it shouldn’t be used for evil? 4. By the way, what is your definition of evil? Oh, and do you believe in God? Short answers, without your particular brand of BS will do please.

First of all, I never said that God was evil, or that if you create something evil, that makes you evil. I just pointed out your flawed analogies.

1. Okay the. Don't see why it matters though.

2. I can see that

3. Objects aren't evil (not sure what an "A bomb"is), as they can be used for evil or good purposes.

4. You know I don't believe in God. I would say evil describes an action that causes unnecessarily extreme suffering and pain. Or it describes a person who chooses to cause unnecessarily extreme suffering and pain. God causes unnecessarily extreme suffering and pain (babies born with aids and other diseases, natural disasters killing innocents, not giving everyone a fair opportunity to heaven, etc.). Therefore, God is evil.

richardhutnik said: You saw threads on here, and on the InterWebs, you also see various sites making these claims.  You have individuals, who are anti-theists, who don't believe God exists, who also claim that this non-existent being is the source of the most evil.  Question: How does a being that does not exist, end up being a source of evil, particularly the most evil?  Anyone care to map what part of the brain that produces God concept also produces evil? Anyone holding both these views that God doesn't exists, AND is a source of evil, care explain this?

It's actually quite simple to explain, while God doesn't exist, humans with vivid imaginations do. 

So we have Books, one called Bible written by men, compiled and canonized by Early Catholic Church (ergo more men) in 5th century, the other one being Quran written again by a guy in 7th century and canonized by another guy later in same century. 

Those books worship genocidal maniac with serious anger issues, and have set a "groundwork" for what we'll call "absolute morality" (of course from religious point of view). 

So from perspective of those books it's morally right to:

Stone your wife, if she wasn't a virgin when you married her. Beat your wife if she isn't obedient. Rape your wife. Women don't have right to "teach" or to study. Have slaves. Stone apostates... and many, many, many more absurds things. 

So while God according to scriptures has some serious issues, the true source of evil is the human invention that worships that being called religion.

spurgeonryan said: After Adam and Eve went against god's will, he gave all humans the choice. We have always had free will. But since their free will made them decide to go against the God that gave them everything, he wanted to test us. To see if we are worthy to go to Heaven.

Just a correction there. If you are referring to what scripture teaches in the Bible it doesn't have anything to do with if someone is worthy enough or not to enter into heaven. It actually states that nobody is worthy, because everyone is born "into sin". Everyone's nature is to do evil whether its someone who lies, steals, murders, hates, blasphemes God's name, or has lustful thoughts, ect. So if you are referring to Biblical teachings, then nobody is worthy to be with God, because everyone is born with that "sin nature". Everyone is guilty. Its only thru faith in Jesus of the Bible that one is "worthy". Essentially letting Jesus's worthiness being sinless to be the only way to God. So in other words you could have someone who seems to be the most loving, kind, giving, and righteous person, but if they don't accept (trust in) what Jesus did for them then for them its eternal separation from God. But you could have the most hateful, murderous type person to ever walk the earth be able to trust in Jesus's payment and then be granted eternal life with God. The main focus of the Bible is not about what mankind can do to be worthy, but about God being the intercessor to save man from their deserved fate.

Just wanted to clear that up since it seems you are talking about Biblical teachings. In accordance to that no one who has ever lived or will live will be worthy except the Jesus of Nazareth who was the attonement on the cross for man's sin nature.