Why are Atheists so set on Proving Christianity Wrong?

Originally Posted by Kouten

Are the ten commandments wrong--the ones that apply to every man? Do not murder. Do not lie, do not steal. I find these laws quite sane and rational.

Depends: Do you support either side in World War II?

If so, you are condoning murder, lies, and theft.


That's the thing, any crime can be justified...if it was committed to prevent something even worse from occurring. (Surely you agree that Police officers are heroes and (mostly) good people, even though they beat people up?)


That's the problem with absolutist statements, unless they are very narrowly defined they cannot account for every conceivable situation, which can lead to problems.

Originally Posted by Puck

We learn and make the same mistakes, again, and again, and again. History proves that.

Okay, but the individual rarely repeats his own mistakes. But you have a point.

Selfcentered, and a logical Fallacy.

Self-centred, okay, logical fallacy not so much.

You are the one who asked the question "Where are there miricales before jesus" everything i said is reffering to that. Thus if it is a red herring you let it fly the coop.

Fair enough.

Actually this argument is a Fallacy of Accident, but since you don't like being told your illogical i will try to handel this in a rational way.

he tells people he is God, but doesn't not explain the compltete complexities involved in that because even now we couldn't understand, even without the fallacy your logic is flawed.

But he's told us that he's omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, which are concepts we can't understand alone, let alone together, and so he HAS explained himself. But he doesn't want to explain creation for whatever reason.

Spare the rod spoil the child. It was an extreme rule in order to make sure it was followed, the harsher the punishment the less likely of people breaking it, the less people breaking laws the more peace is mantained.

But people still broke the law. And further, he knew who would eventually break the law and succumb to the punishment he invented. But he invented it anyway.

They wern't valid though, they where full of logical Fallacys which makes them INVALID! I dismiss false logic because i am logical by nature, if something is not logical or fails to present an idea in a logical manner it is not worth my time of effort to rply.

Again, I've proven most of my arguments. There is no false logic in the majority of my posts.

And if you're logical by nature how is it that you can come to the conclusion that God exists? Logic requires proof before belief I should think, or at least a rational line of thought. "If I push this button, the light comes on. When I push this other button, the light goes off. Everytime I push the first button, the light comes on, and everytime I push the second button, the light goes off. If I push the first button repeatedly, the light stays on. If I push the second button repeatedly, the light stays off. Therefore the first button turns the light on, and the second button turns the light off."

I can't see what kind of logical thought process would result in "therefore God exists."

So, what logical process has caused you to come to the conclusion that God exists?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Depends: Do you support either side in World War II?

If so, you are condoning murder, lies, and theft.


That's the thing, any crime can be justified...if it was committed to prevent something even worse from occurring. (Surely you agree that Police officers are heroes and (mostly) good people, even though they beat people up?)


That's the problem with absolutist statements, unless they are very narrowly defined they cannot account for every conceivable situation, which can lead to problems.

A crime can be justified by human society, but that doesn't make it right. Also, I've never supported war at all. It would be so much better if we could merely debate these things without bloodshed, but that's my opinion. Though I suppose, like this one, they'd be never-ending. Everything you've mentioned is a flaw of human nature, even doing wrong with good intentions, or perhaps doing wrong to prevent further wrong. It's still wrong, unfortunately. And yes, I understand the full implications of this view. It's a shame, but I honestly believed that even if I were to kill a man who tried to murder me or my family, I've still done wrong (by my faith). I know I'd feel guilty even if it was meant for good. This is something I can not argue. It's just who I am.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

The only way we wouldn't make mistakes would be if we can see the future. We can't, and therefore we're as perfect as we can possibly be. "Possibly" being the key word there, as opposed to "Impossibly". Even perfection doesn't take into account external factors.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

That's an excuse. I CAN comprehend his supposed existence, and have pointed out numerous times in many threads the logical infallacy of his existence, only to be replied with "yeah well we're not supposed to understand". I'm not content with that answer I'm afraid, and neither is any rational person.

Claiming to be able to understand him is no proof that you really do. Hell, this is proof right here that I can't understand him. The very existance of a God is beyond logic. Why should a god need reason to exist? It doesn't make any sense to us, especially where we are now. Ther isn't enough reasoning, now, or ever, to prove or disprove it (and that's not the only reason I believe). Now, if you can comprehend God, please explain him to me. I'm serious. This is what the debate's about (i guess it is now).

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

I am in no way hindered by this "god" of yours. I suppose you mean "showing us his wonder", but I've seen no such thing. I've seen the wonder that is nature, I've seen the wonder that is reality, I've seen the wonder that is the element of chance that on this planet, alone, across the many planets of this solar system, has sprouted life. The wonder that somehow, molecules, when arranged in a particular way, become self aware. The wonder that we, as humans, have made the world a lot more habitable than it used to be. I've seen no wonders of God. And the explanation "he created it all" doesn't convince me, since if he was so keen to show himself and take the credit for it all in the olden days, why doesn't he want to do it now?

1st of all, to answer the last question is because if he provided proof, there wouldn't be faith. As far as the wonder of God, everything I've said is under the assumption that he exists, just like I take everything you're saying under the assumption that he doesn't. That way, we don't have to keep saying that. Also, the improbability that is our existance is a very wonder that I clearly see. If you prefer to believe in such odds, that's fine. But the wonder's there whether you call it chance or God. I simply can't come to terms believing these odds under which we came to be. But that's just me. Not a fan of odds.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

In response to your claim that my arguments are pathetic, you're the one humbling yourself to something that may not even exist. Out of fear? Out of love? Out of an inability to understand why you shouldn't?

Out of both. And because we need to. Because humans don't see their own error as much as we claim to (why do we keep making the same mistakes if we claim to see and understand them?). And because I'm confident that he exists. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

My behaviour doesn't contradict my beliefs. Don't insult your intelligence by trying to insult me.

I don't need to insult you. Half of your posts are so ignorant to the other side of this debate that you are, in fact, insulting yourself.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

I don't understand the other side of the argument because there's nothing to understand. The Bible claims that there is this God who loves us and has created us all solely so that we can be punished, and even orders that some people suffer both in life AND in the afterlife. Either this is untrue, or your God is a dick. And I don't understand why you continue to worship him in light of his dickery. And unless you enlighten me, while actually acknowledging this dickery instead of denying it, I probably never will. Insulting a dick doesn't, in turn, make me a dick. I'm simply being honest.

Except your insults are accusations which have very little support. God isn't angry, threatening or power-hungry. Simply just. And calling God a dick doesn't make you look very intelligent or reasonable. It just makes you look immature. I'm not going to call you a dick no matter what this debate turns into.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

A lot of humans are inhuman towards each other. But these are usually the result of one bad example of humanity being in a position of authority. And even then, providing that your God exists, it's all down to him. Which is what you want to believe, right?

He's given us authority over our world. It's our responsibility to maintain it, and so far, we've done a pretty poor job. But perhaps I've misunderstood.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

I'm sorry mate, but you have insulted me numerous times in your post, and I haven't insulted you once until this post, only in response to yours. I may have insulted your beliefs, and you may take this to heart all you like, but you've offered no fair reasoning as to why your beliefs aren't silly at all, or at least why my opinions are invalid concerning your beliefs. My arguments have been logical, I attack religion because that's the entire point of arguing against religion and it in all honesty deserves to be attacked, (you should believe the same since it "tests your faith", and I have offered plenty of fair reasoning behind my arguments. Whereas the only reason you offer towards God's existence is "you can't disprove him", and when the opportunity arises for you to offer more, you choose not to, insulting me again and calling me "closed-minded". If I am shown evidence, I criticize that evidence, and then either disregard it or accept it. So you may offer it, and if it is indeed valid, I may consider it. But until then, your insults are unacceptable.

Insulting you wasn't my intention. I merely tired of the conceited tone it appeared that you were taking against my own reasoning. And I'm afraid that, despite my other arguments, you continue to merely say that we (Christians) solely believe that he can't be disproven, so therefore he must exist. I don't believe that.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

And why should I be humbled? You've just proven my point that for whatever reason religion wants to suppress us as a species and as individuals. Why should I be kept down? Because I don't believe in God? Because I disagree with you? Because I'm too proud of myself? Why shouldn't I be proud of my own achievements? Obviously some people would take this opportunity to insult me and try to put forward that I have no achievements in my life (despite the fact that I at least have a decent education), perhaps making reference to my mother's basement (despite the fact that I don't have a basement) and a neckbeard (despite the fact that I shave regularly) and perhaps bodily weight (despite the fact that I probably weight like 150lbs), but I hope you're above that and give me an actual acceptable reason for it, and if not acceptable, at least one I can respect that you believe.

Despite my own achievements and mistakes, I accept the truths of human kind. That with or without God, we've made terrible mistakes. If we don't acknowledge them at all (not just to a God, to ourselves), then we can't move forward. It goes back to that whole thing: learning from your mistakes.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

P.S. Now, I've been pretty hostile in this particular post, I acknowledge, and the only reason I'm not removing it is because I'd have to re-write the whole post. Considering Aralith is being a bit friendlier in his attempt, you'll obviously respond to him better, but should you choose to respond to this post if I can ask you not to reply in TOO much hostility and I'll extend the courtesy in return. I don't want to make enemies here.

Me neither. I simply feel that many of my points have been ignored, as you probably feel with me.

Now, I'm not sure if I've mentioned this here or in a different thread. But here's how I see it:

No logic or reasoning will convince the other side. It's something you have to feel, something only you can see and decide for yourself. I doubt anyone will ever be able to make heads or tails of it all. I know I can't fully explain my beliefs, though I try my best. And I know that even atheists have points they can't explain. Thus, we all turn to our basic understandings which are different for everyone. I know debating is the purpose of the thread, but I hope we can at least accept that, in coming to terms with the other side, no one is necessarily right or wrong in this case. And if someone is, we'll simply never know.

Is it possible to at least agree to that?

(p.s. I'm sorry if I've offended absolutely anyone.)

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Depends: Do you support either side in World War II?

If so, you are condoning murder, lies, and theft.


That's the thing, any crime can be justified...if it was committed to prevent something even worse from occurring. (Surely you agree that Police officers are heroes and (mostly) good people, even though they beat people up?)


That's the problem with absolutist statements, unless they are very narrowly defined they cannot account for every conceivable situation, which can lead to problems.

Lets take all 10 commandments and see what would have happened if they were observed 100% at the time of World War II

The ones that majorly apply are 6,8,9,and 10

It started with envy. People wanted land they didn't have.
Lies came next. Hitler lied and said one place was the last he wanted and he just keeps going.
Stealing land was stolen and the allies said that's enough.
And it comes to one big mass murder where everyone kills everyone else.

Now lets go back to WWI

Murder, Coveting, Lies, Stealing, Murder, Covet, Stealing: basically how it goes, starting with the assassination of the one Prime Minister, followed by people wanting land, there had to be lies going around, then theft, murder fields, taking germany's land with the treaty, and so on.

If you go all the way back, and people actually follow the commandments, we wouldn't have to deal with war.

WWII is interesting, I admit, but I do not support it. I respect those who fought, but it would have been so easy to avoid everything.

Oh, and if I were to say I think of police as heroes, that'd be a lie. I think of them as a force that should be unnecessary. Whether or not they are good people isn't for me to judge.

Can you honestly say that breaking laws is justified by breaking laws? That's like saying: "Well, *name* did it." The problem is that people think it's all up to them, when really it's not their business.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Also with God, the contradictory evidence is the claims of his existence. Firstly coming to the conclusion that a God created the universe has always seemed illogical to me. "I exist, earth exists, the universe exists, therefore someone must have put it there". Secondly God is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and I've outline this argument many times on this board so let's suffice to say that his existence is contradictory in and of itself.

I'd like to address these because I wasn't able to completely do so in the other thread. I've never really thought the problem of evil was really a problem. Even hardcore skeptics would even agree with this position.

William Rowe (atheist)

"Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim. Indeed, granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God." [Rowe, PH:EAE:10, 1979]

Paul Draper (agnostic)

"I agree with most philosophers of religion that theists face no serious logical problem of evil" [Paul Draper, PH:EAE:26, 1989]


When you approach the idea of the Christian God with your outlook you have to assume God's omnibenevolence obligates Him to keep people not only from Hell but from suffering as well. What makes you think He is obligated to so?

On suffering:
Could God not, as mentioned before, allow us to persevere through suffering as to not see who actually cares enough to give a crap? Heaven is an eternal, perfect estate and while I'm not we have to truly "earn" our way in with good deeds and altruism I am arguing that God letting someone who simply hates Him, or feels no need to convene with Him in a spiritual prayerful manner, would be a monstrous God.

It would not only be monstrous in that He is making an exception to His rules (which would blemish His perfection and make Him not God), it could possibly be the most terrifying experience for any hardcore atheist to stand right before God for ALL of eternity. C.S. Lewis even says in one of his stories (once again not necessarily official dogma) that many will find Hell actually more comfortable. I'd like to think that perhaps Heaven and Hell are really one in the same place but the relationship between the person and God truly determines how Hellish/Heavenly all of eternity will be. Just a thought.

On Omnipotence/Omniscience:

In a less serious manner (but perhaps just as correct), perhaps God CAN lift a rock so heavy even He can not lift it. If He can change the rules to meet the standards and change them back (such as fluctuating his level of weakness/knowledge) then maybe it'd be possible.

In a more serious manner I'd argue that this is just a silly question that has no meaning and therefore can not be true or false. Remember the Christian God is inherently logical and created a universe that is inherently logical (such as cause-effect relationships) and that approaching Him in an illogical manner will get you nowhere.

Firstly, Miilou Suede's post.

Originally Posted by Miilou Suede

I'd like to address these because I wasn't able to completely do so in the other thread. I've never really thought the problem of evil was really a problem. Even hardcore skeptics would even agree with this position.

Well I disagree with your quotes, for reasons I will outline below.

When you approach the idea of the Christian God with your outlook you have to assume God's omnibenevolence obligates Him to keep people not only from Hell but from suffering as well. What makes you think He is obligated to so?

On suffering:
Could God not, as mentioned before, allow us to persevere through suffering as to not see who actually cares enough to give a crap? Heaven is an eternal, perfect estate and while I'm not we have to truly "earn" our way in with good deeds and altruism I am arguing that God letting someone who simply hates Him, or feels no need to convene with Him in a spiritual prayerful manner, would be a monstrous God.

It would not only be monstrous in that He is making an exception to His rules (which would blemish His perfection and make Him not God), it could possibly be the most terrifying experience for any hardcore atheist to stand right before God for ALL of eternity. C.S. Lewis even says in one of his stories (once again not necessarily official dogma) that many will find Hell actually more comfortable. I'd like to think that perhaps Heaven and Hell are really one in the same place but the relationship between the person and God truly determines how Hellish/Heavenly all of eternity will be. Just a thought.

Well, the thing is, those people wouldn't exist if not for God. God created them just so that they would end up wronging him. Your argument assumes that they exist already, and that the problem is "Why can't he let them into heaven?", whereas the actual problem is "Why do they exist purely to go to Hell?" And it'd be just as painful for an atheist to go to Hell, because that still means there's an afterlife, and they're still spending an eternity looking at proof that they were wrong.

On Omnipotence/Omniscience:

In a less serious manner (but perhaps just as correct), perhaps God CAN lift a rock so heavy even He can not lift it. If He can change the rules to meet the standards and change them back (such as fluctuating his level of weakness/knowledge) then maybe it'd be possible.

Since this is less serious you'll forgive me for disregarding that as silly, because omnipotence probably means he can do anything at all times. Making himself temporarily not-omnipotent would probably result in him being unable to return to being omnipotent.

In a more serious manner I'd argue that this is just a silly question that has no meaning and therefore can not be true or false. Remember the Christian God is inherently logical and created a universe that is inherently logical (such as cause-effect relationships) and that approaching Him in an illogical manner will get you nowhere.

Well the point of the question is: If he can make it so that he can't move the rock, then he can't move the rock. If he can't make such a rock, then he can't make the rock. Either way, he's not omnipotent.

Perhaps a better question would be "Can God make a rock so large that he can NEVER move it?" That removes the "temporary un-omnipotence" out of the equation. And it's a perfectly logical question to ask, since it results in a logical answer, and a logical conclusion. God can do anything and everything, according to him. Can he do this? Either way, the answer results in him not being able to do anything and everything. This also means that omnipotency, in and of itself, is impossible.

As is a God that is all of omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. A world where there is evil, and a God who is all of omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, cannot not exist. Therefore either evil does not exist, or this God does not exist. Evil exists, therefore this God cannot exist as well. That's my reason for believing God doesn't exist, since the only way God could therefore exist would be if he was not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not omnibenevolent. And this would mean he's lied at some point. At least this supposition suggests that he does actually exist, but many won't concede to this more logical (but still rather illogical) standpoint.

- - - - - - - - - -

Now, Kouten's.

Well, I feel you made a valid point on the end there about not being able to convince the other, so I feel we've addressed most of each other's points to the point where they're completely exhausted and we'd just be treading over old ground. Also my views on humanity clearly differ from yours, so we can get that out of the way since that's not the point of the thread.

Originally Posted by Kouten

Claiming to be able to understand him is no proof that you really do. Hell, this is proof right here that I can't understand him. The very existance of a God is beyond logic. Why should a god need reason to exist? It doesn't make any sense to us, especially where we are now. Ther isn't enough reasoning, now, or ever, to prove or disprove it (and that's not the only reason I believe). Now, if you can comprehend God, please explain him to me. I'm serious. This is what the debate's about (i guess it is now).

Well, my simple answer is "the Problem of Evil", which I've mentioned earlier in this thread and in the "How can people be Atheists?" thread. Basically, I conclude that the simple fact of his existence is a paradox, and therefore impossible. A world where there is evil, and a God who is all of omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, does not exist. Therefore either evil does not exist, or this God does not exist. Evil exists, therefore this God does not exist. That's my reason for believing God doesn't exist, since the only way God could therefore exist would be if he was not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not omnibenevolent. And this would mean he's lied at some point. At least this supposition suggests that he does actually exist, but many won't concede to this more logical (but still rather illogical) standpoint. (C&P'd from above).

1st of all, to answer the last question is because if he provided proof, there wouldn't be faith. As far as the wonder of God, everything I've said is under the assumption that he exists, just like I take everything you're saying under the assumption that he doesn't. That way, we don't have to keep saying that. Also, the improbability that is our existance is a very wonder that I clearly see. If you prefer to believe in such odds, that's fine. But the wonder's there whether you call it chance or God. I simply can't come to terms believing these odds under which we came to be. But that's just me. Not a fan of odds.

Fair enough, I can respect that. But I just look at this in light of the paradoxical impossibility of God's existence, rule him out, and then come to the conclusion of chance.

Out of both. And because we need to. Because humans don't see their own error as much as we claim to (why do we keep making the same mistakes if we claim to see and understand them?). And because I'm confident that he exists. But that's just me.

Well, I just feel that this confidence must stem from something. And I don't understand what, so please enlighten me.

I don't need to insult you. Half of your posts are so ignorant to the other side of this debate that you are, in fact, insulting yourself.

Well I don't mean to offend but I do actually look at the other side, address it, come to the conclusion that it's illogical, sometimes even that it's silly, and therefore rule it out. If you feel I've ignored something you've said, feel free to address it again.

Except your insults are accusations which have very little support. God isn't angry, threatening or power-hungry. Simply just. And calling God a dick doesn't make you look very intelligent or reasonable. It just makes you look immature. I'm not going to call you a dick no matter what this debate turns into.

I won't resort to name-calling either. I just said "dick" because I was writing my feelings more than a rational description, but to be honest even with a clear head I wouldn't be able to think of any better way to describe him. That's how I feel about God's behaviour, providing he exists. And the basis for all of this is the Old Testament, of which you can pretty much choose a random chunk and find evidence of God being very much unloving and uncaring. I never said he was angry, but I suppose that comes along with my claim. Threatening, he orders us to follow his law or face punishment, without giving us reason as to what good reason there is to follow his law other than "I said so", which shows that he just wants to assert his authority. Claiming that we would live better lives if we follow his law doesn't seem to be his concern (correct me if I'm wrong), but rather offering us the promise of Heaven along with the threat of Hell or other punishments in life (such as stoning).

Very much unjust, as justice is "giving each their due", and many are given punishments that they don't deserve. I'm in the firm view that no one deserves inhumane torturous punishments, because that just lowers us to their level.

And given my argument earlier concerning the problem of Evil, he's created souls knowing that in the end they're going to go to Hell, which in my mind is nothing short of malicious.

I said he was totalitarian also because he's watching us all the time, knows in advance how we're going to behave, and wants us all to obey, and yet somehow he gives us free will, and some of us an unnatural need to go directly against some of his laws (many of those involving sex, plus those people who just commit crimes because they don't know anything else).

He's given us authority over our world. It's our responsibility to maintain it, and so far, we've done a pretty poor job. But perhaps I've misunderstood.

Well, I really can't believe that it's our responsibility, or he'd have just created the world, created the life on it, given it a list of instructions or an objective and left it at that, rather than interfering for a long time and telling us exactly what to do and how to do it, then disappearing.

Insulting you wasn't my intention. I merely tired of the conceited tone it appeared that you were taking against my own reasoning. And I'm afraid that, despite my other arguments, you continue to merely say that we (Christians) solely believe that he can't be disproven, so therefore he must exist. I don't believe that.

Well then, what is it you do believe? If the evidence is all around us, as you claim, then why can't I see it? If I sounded conceited, I don't know where you got that from but I'm not going to argue my behaviour and therefore I'll just acknowledge and apologize for it.

Despite my own achievements and mistakes, I accept the truths of human kind. That with or without God, we've made terrible mistakes. If we don't acknowledge them at all (not just to a God, to ourselves), then we can't move forward. It goes back to that whole thing: learning from your mistakes.

Oh we have made terrible mistakes. Many, many terrible mistakes. But as I say, some of these are the result of the worst examples of humanity given authority, and some people who feel like they don't have a choice. I believe in better, and I believe we can bring this to light. Sometimes I feel I'll be the one to do that, but it's a dream I hold onto.

Me neither. I simply feel that many of my points have been ignored, as you probably feel with me.

Not really, I simply feel that I'm making points and that you're seeing them in light of your faith. Which I can't honestly understand as anything more than "believe in spite of a lack of evidence", or even sometimes "believe in spite of the evidence". That's honestly how the word "faith" registers in my mind. I avoid saying "have faith in this person" because I don't see trusting someone like that. I see it as making an assessment of a person based in fact (for example, I trust that the person in the cockpit of a plane has a qualification to pilot it, otherwise he would likely not be there). I don't call that faith.

Now, I'm not sure if I've mentioned this here or in a different thread. But here's how I see it:

No logic or reasoning will convince the other side. It's something you have to feel, something only you can see and decide for yourself. I doubt anyone will ever be able to make heads or tails of it all. I know I can't fully explain my beliefs, though I try my best. And I know that even atheists have points they can't explain. Thus, we all turn to our basic understandings which are different for everyone. I know debating is the purpose of the thread, but I hope we can at least accept that, in coming to terms with the other side, no one is necessarily right or wrong in this case. And if someone is, we'll simply never know.

Is it possible to at least agree to that?

(p.s. I'm sorry if I've offended absolutely anyone.)

No need to apologize to me at least.

But on that, I still believe that religious people are "wrong" I'm afraid, but I don't let this affect me unless they try to come along and convert me, or otherwise affect my life. I have some good friends that are Christians, but since I don't bring it up all the time, and neither do they (simply because their religion isn't their entire personality as is the case with some fundamentalists), we get along. But I still think that, if I can't say they're actually wrong in fact (which, I suppose, I can't), I think they're wrong to believe without proof at the very least.

And though I strongly disagree, I respect your right to believe what you believe as long as it doesn't affect me, others, or your own ability to enjoy your life, as long as it doesn't mean you have to submit to an external authority for the sake of your belief, and you keep it to yourself apart from in discussions such as this (the same goes for atheists, and myself). So in a lot of cases I think that in trying to turn some people away from religion, I'm doing them good, because I honestly believe that wasting this life for the sake of an afterlife which I view as imaginary isn't acceptable.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Well, my simple answer is "the Problem of Evil", which I've mentioned earlier in this thread and in the "How can people be Atheists?" thread. Basically, I conclude that the simple fact of his existence is a paradox, and therefore impossible. A world where there is evil, and a God who is all of omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, does not exist. Therefore either evil does not exist, or this God does not exist. Evil exists, therefore this God does not exist. That's my reason for believing God doesn't exist, since the only way God could therefore exist would be if he was not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not omnibenevolent. And this would mean he's lied at some point. At least this supposition suggests that he does actually exist, but many won't concede to this more logical (but still rather illogical) standpoint. (C&P'd from above).

I thought I explained away the Problem of Evil earlier in the thread. Well, it would seem that you miss it since you didn't address it the first time, so allow me to reiterate. Let us first break down the word omnibenevolent. That leaves us with omni and benevolent, so lets now define those two words. Omni: all encompassing; everything. Benevolent: kind; good; altruistic. So essentially, an omnibenevolent being is something that wants the best for everyone. This being the case, lets now try to apply it human existence. If a parent were to give in to every whim, and cater to every desire of their child, that child would most likely end up a spoiled rotten brat, regardless of what other things those parents might try to teach that child. They would end up thinking that everybody should be doing things for them.

Thus, to be a good parent, sometimes one must say no to the child, and while the child may not understand why immediately and thus think of it as punishment or injustice, they will come to realize why they're parents did it. The same is true of the relationship between god and humans. If this omnibenevolent god were to make earth nothing but flowers of daisies to frolic in, and make everything super squishy so that nothing could ever hurt you, and made it so that there were no bad people, then A. he would have denied us free will, and B. we would not be able to grow spiritually or mentally... at all.

So, we can conclude that evil exists for two reasons. One, god gave us free will, which I would say actually makes him all the more omnibenevolent. He realized that we could never progress without choice, regardless of the dark places that choice can and does take us. And two, to make sure that we were not just going to go up to heaven and think that we should be wait on hand and foot. In fact quite the opposite. The Bible describes heaven as a place of worshiping Yahweh, so in fact it is very important that humans learn to be humble on this earth. This omnibenevolent god, assuming he was omniscient as well, would be able to see that although allowing choice and evil had the potential to cause us great pain, that we would grow and become stronger people because of it.

Does this sufficiently answer the Problem of Evil?

Originally Posted by Aralith

I thought I explained away the Problem of Evil earlier in the thread. Well, it would seem that you miss it since you didn't address it the first time, so allow me to reiterate. Let us first break down the word omnibenevolent. That leaves us with omni and benevolent, so lets now define those two words. Omni: all encompassing; everything. Benevolent: kind; good; altruistic. So essentially, an omnibenevolent being is something that wants the best for everyone. This being the case, lets now try to apply it human existence. If a parent were to give in to every whim, and cater to every desire of their child, that child would most likely end up a spoiled rotten brat, regardless of what other things those parents might try to teach that child. They would end up thinking that everybody should be doing things for them.

Thus, to be a good parent, sometimes one must say no to the child, and while the child may not understand why immediately and thus think of it as punishment or injustice, they will come to realize why they're parents did it. The same is true of the relationship between god and humans. If this omnibenevolent god were to make earth nothing but flowers of daisies to frolic in, and make everything super squishy so that nothing could ever hurt you, and made it so that there were no bad people, then A. he would have denied us free will, and B. we would not be able to grow spiritually or mentally... at all.

So, we can conclude that evil exists for two reasons. One, god gave us free will, which I would say actually makes him all the more omnibenevolent. He realized that we could never progress without choice, regardless of the dark places that choice can and does take us. And two, to make sure that we were not just going to go up to heaven and think that we should be wait on hand and foot. In fact quite the opposite. The Bible describes heaven as a place of worshiping Yahweh, so in fact it is very important that humans learn to be humble on this earth. This omnibenevolent god, assuming he was omniscient as well, would be able to see that although allowing choice and evil had the potential to cause us great pain, that we would grow and become stronger people because of it.

Does this sufficiently answer the Problem of Evil?

Apologies, must've missed this post.


To answer your question: No, because you only take into account omnibenevolence and evil, rather than all of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence + evil. And you argue we have free will, but when God creates us, and creates our environment, and knows exactly how it's going to turn out but does it anyway, we can't truly have free will. And he creates a being that becomes selfish and tends towards evil in particular environments, rather than a being that understands that it shouldn't be selfish. He has created a being that can only be humbled when exposed to evil, as opposed to just creating an inherently benevolent and obedient species. He gives us a choice, knowing that we are able to make choices that he doesn't want us to choose (sin). He could give us free will, but make it so that we wouldn't want to sin, but he makes it so that some of us DO want to sin. That's his own fault, and an evil he himself is responsible for. And yet he punishes for it.

I'll copy GentleArtillery's post from the other religion thread, because he makes a good argument which might clear it up.

Originally Posted by GentleArtillery

God, who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, wanted all pumpkins to be peanut butter. There was no obstacle - no desire of his own, for example - that hindered him from creating all pumpkins as peanut butter. Yet, he didn't create pumpkins as peanut butter, and he doesn't even turn them into that after they were created. He doesn't enable them to become peanut butter themselves. He loves the pumpkins and does not want them to go to hell, but because they won't turn into peanut butter, he will banish them to hell.

Also, parents haven't got as much say in how their children will behave as you might like to think, whereas God has the power to create his children with certain inherent factors and know exactly how they will turn out depending on how he treats them.