God’s little good vs evil games
27 December 2006 by Stardust
This post is inspired by recent disagreements (to put it mildly) with fundie relatives who choose to believe in a perfect, all-loving god. None of them, and no xian I have ever encountered have an adequate explanation as to where evil in the world came from, except to say that it came from god-given free will, human nature, disobedience of humans to follow the rules laid down by the great sky daddy and a host of other reasons they have to choose from in their mental databases of fantasy. But, at the same time they say that their god created all things and saw that they were good. So, where did evil come from if this god only created good?
If we examine closely what the Bible says, evil was instigated and started by god and his “who has the bigger dick” games in heaven and giving his celestial counterparts (angels, including Lucifer) the choice of joining him or rebelling and fighting to overthrow him. Then later god makes a little game of keep-away-from-evil in the Garden of Eden after creating his ignorant little human pets,and then punishes them and all of the human race for merely using their free choice option.
In both stories of the fall of Satan, and the fall of Adam and Eve, this god of xian mythology gives his creatures a choice even though he knows that he can only accept one. If he wanted his creatures to have free will, and he is an all-good god, why not have multiple good choices instead of bringing evil into it? Here were beings, freshly created, who supposedly didn’t know anything yet, but god put bad in their brains. If this god had wanted obedient little puppies, he shouldn’t have created evil choices for his creations to choose from in the first place.
I have brought this subject of the origins of evil up to many xians and the question really agitates them when trying to explain it to me. They come back with “god gave us free will”…and I counter with “and free will to choose what?” They say , “to choose between good and evil”…and I say, “where did the evil come from?”…they say “Satan”…and I say…”WHERE DID SATAN COME FROM?” and they say “Satan was one of god’s fallen angels.” I then ask, “how did Satan fall?” They say, “he chose evil”…I then ask “where did the evil come from that Satan chose?”….Using their logic…it all goes back to GOD, and xians hate pinning responsibility for evilness on their god. Yet, that is where it all leads back to according to their own mythology book.
They get quite flustered with this debate and come quite close to telling me to just go to hell. 
27 December 2006, on 7:30 pm
The Problem of Evil ™ pretty much skewers the religious notion of an all loving, all good God, and smashed any last vestiges of faith I might have ever had in my past. The same was true for British historian Arnold Toynbee, whose recollections I read wherein he talks about everything he likes about each of the world religions, and the things he finds objectionable in each of them and why he can’t bring himself to embrace any of them. My sentiments might be different now reading Toynbee afresh, but at the time it was very strangely wonderful to read the words of another human being, living on a small Island an ocean away from me, of an earlier Generation, yet so accurately matching my own thoughts at the time it was like holding a flawless mirror up to them.
I remember also, upon hearing about the philosophical postulate that God must be 1) all Good 2) all knowing 3) all powerful == the first thing I thought was, if this being were all powerful, why would he give a sh*t about the first two, and couldn’t he just fool all the lesser beings into believing 1 and 2 if he wanted to?
Toynbee concluded that if God is anything, God is Love–that he could live with; but he could not accept the idea of that God also being all powerful or all knowing. Of course, when you’re in love, you feel on top of the world, feel as though love really can conquer all. But then reality sets in, you recognize that passion alone is not synonymous with love; your love can falter, even fail…it can be cruelly unrequited, rebuffed…you realize it too is only human, all too human. Still wonderful, yes, but fragile and fleeting…thus all the more precious, really.
…so
Always Look on the Bright Side of Life…
(…the songs of Monty Python have always been more truly inspirational to me than any religious hymn ever written)
27 December 2006, on 7:38 pm
“If he wanted his creatures to have free will, and he is an all-good god, why not have multiple good choices instead of bringing evil into it?”
Hey, this is interesting. I’ve never thought of this before, but you’re right. I might ask my kids, “would you like to wear a diaper or sit on the potty?” but I never say, “would you like to kiss your brother or throw a block at him?”
27 December 2006, on 7:42 pm
I was going to say, I practiced Orthodox Judaism for awhile and at least they are internally consistent, believing that their god created both good and evil.
The xians CAN’T admit to this, though, because otherwise how could they sustain their assertion that you must accept jesus to go to heaven? After all, the reason you need Jesus is because their god is unable to be around sin. So if you have a god who created sin…well..how’s that going to work?
So..I wouldn’t expect them to ever admit to it. They’ll lose on a more important theological question if they do.
27 December 2006, on 8:21 pm
Stardust
I too have had this same type of conversation with religious folks. It leaves them completely befuddled. I learned pretty quick that as a child I should not question such things and should just trust and have faith in those who obviously knew more than I did. Blah Blah Blah.
It still bothers me that so few people actually question their own beliefs. They believe the most inane and fantastic of all unbelievable ideas and yet fight for their rights to have such beliefs. All the while never questioning what those beliefs really are and where those beliefs came from. I’m a firm believer in the saying “If you hang out with crazy people they will make you crazy too”.
With that said that is how I perceive religion. And that is how I think of the god meme. It’s a type of infection. It takes a good amount of training to idetify it and immunize ourselves from it. All the while having a bit of compassion for those still infected and being their contact with the truthful rational side of life.
27 December 2006, on 10:20 pm
As much as I like infinite regression in fractals, I can find no place for it in any logical argument. What Stardust describes is exactly what happens in the mind of a believer when confronted with reasonable, rational questions, such as a child would ask.
27 December 2006, on 10:44 pm
I practiced Orthodox Judaism for awhile and at least they are internally consistent, believing that their god created both good and evil.
MomSquared - If the Orthodox Jews admit that their god created both good and evil, for what purpose is it believed that evil would be created for? Is that question ever answered in the Jewish Orthodox faith?
27 December 2006, on 11:58 pm
Here are a few links, stardust
http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=238&o=140561
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/satan.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8053_1.html
Why Evil?
No original sin. Most believe God created Satan as evil inclination, a tendency that lies within everyone. People also have awareness of and inclination toward goodness. Thus, God provides free will as a test of obedience and faith. (From MomSquared: in other words, god is an asshole who lets people suffer so that he can be glorified).
28 December 2006, on 12:12 am
Not too far OT:
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/12/popular-delusions-v.html
Imagine that allowing a child (even an atheist child!) to believe in Santa might not be a bad thing…
Naomi (I had the link and needed to drop it before I could read the post–I’ll be back)
28 December 2006, on 12:35 am
I didn’t know about this book until yesterday, so I couldn’t ask “Santa Claus” for it, as he’s already done this year. I suppose I’ll have to spend my own money…
Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief by Lewis Wolper (5 out of 5 stars on ScienceDaily Books; link is below quote)
What and why we believe
It seems quirky, claiming to “imagine six impossible things” as Alice’s White Queen did. Before breakfast or at any time. Wolpert shows, however, that most of us are firmly convinced of many things that aren’t so: gods, unlikely events, strange medical practices - the list seems almost endless. The lack of tangible evidence supporting or even evidence countering, those things we have faith in seems to have little impact on our credulity. In a dozen illuminating chapters, this award-winning biologist examines this almost inexplicable facet of our lives. Written with precision and deep insight, Wolpert demonstrates his command of how belief is a fundamental aspect of our society. Why do we believe the things we do?
As a biologist, Wolpert naturally turns to our evolutionary roots for clues to the origins of belief. That which sets us apart from the other animals - our oversized brain, our use of tools, and our ability to use language - as the indicators. The brain’s capacity to store, retrieve and assemble information is tied to our abilities in technology and language. For Wolpert, the prime element is the making of tools. Making tools means envisioning the final product, and devising how to bring it about. Put more simply, understanding cause and effect - something even other primates have trouble with. From this beginning, he argues, come social relationships and a sense of values. Along the way, we also developed the idea of agency which we assigned to events or circumstances that were out of ordinary, everyday experience. If the process of flaking stone went wrong, why did that happen. The best-laid plans, etc.
From this beginning, Wolpert shows how the panoply of modern beliefs has come into our lives. The onset of conceiving an agency either began or enhanced the mind’s “belief engine”. The belief engine demands an identifiable cause for circumstances. When that’s not readily apparent, we extend our belief to things we must imagine. These explanations can, and are, passed around the community, establishing both a bond among its members and reinforcing the interpretation. Once the idea gains prominence, it resists challenge and is difficult to overturn. Religion, of course, is the ultimate organised form of belief, often touted as society’s best glue. Wolpert accepts this situation without rancour, even admitting his disturbed son’s conversion to a fundamentalist Christian sect has improved the boy’s behaviour. That given, Wolpert cannot excuse rigid adherence to dogmas that have no basis in reality. Science has disproven so many religious and other belief systems that he insists the wider society examine their beliefs more critically. There are other facets than family relations to consider.
Recent claims that religious folk, or even those with faith in such things as homeopathy or “crystal healing”, actually feel or live better may have statistical substance. Wolpert wants these claims investigated fully, since the early results have little validity. Part of how these practices seem effective lies within the brain’s dealings with the rest of the body. It is this aspect that suggests paths of study, since it ’s clear the objects or methods have no curative power in themselves. Many of the methods are accompanied by common-sense recommendations regarding diet and abandonment of harmful habits such as smoking or lack of exercise. Although Wolpert is even-handed in his approach to the many common delusions of our times, he clearly wishes their validity be openly investigated and the results aired.
Such an investigation, Wolpert concedes, will be [and has been] difficult to launch and sustain. Clearly, our minds, however powerful in certain talents, have a tendency to seek immediate answers. The validity of the cause need not be certain if an acceptable origin can be declared. We are willing to believe in ghosts or other paranormal phenomena simply because somebody forcefully declares them to be true. Similar views are firmly held about medical practices. As with other views of agency, we are uncomfortable with illness that we cannot understand. Any explanation, forcefully given with a promise of relief, finds easy acceptance. Hence, “alternative”, or in Wolpert’s Britain “complementary”, healing methods are widespread. Whether they are a form of “placebo” medicine, which appears to cure remains to be determined.
Wolpert’s book comes at a time when examining our beliefs seems more crucial than ever. We maintain ideas about ourselves, but it becomes too easy to project them to others. When more reasonable ideas are put forward, we must not be too ready to reject them. This book should provide a basis for people willing to apply reason and science to accepted dogmas. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/cgi-bin/apf4/amazon_products_feed.cgi?Operation=ItemLookup&myOperation=CustomerReviews&ItemId=0393064492#review_1
When I go into town tomorrow, my first stop will be at a book store!
Naomi
28 December 2006, on 12:43 am
I was thinking about this, I came to a conclusion. Xians say gawd has a plan for us all, yet all evil is free will, which means it can be assumed that this person deviated from the plan.
That means free will is more powerful than gawd. This of course, means that gawd is not all powerful, which leads into a whole list of things.
28 December 2006, on 1:03 am
This is why I have no use for religion. As has been stated by others before, what is the point of having a brain that is capable of logical, rational thought when you have to suppress it just to accept an inconsistent, contradictory bunch of nonsense on faith? Some religious people have told me it’s all a metaphor and don’t think so literally about the world. But a metaphor that doesn’t explain anything and gets in the way of clear communication is useless, no matter how warm and fuzzy it might make you feel inside.
28 December 2006, on 1:33 am
MomSquared - Thanks for the links which can be added to the info that shows that this god of Abraham is just a dick.
28 December 2006, on 1:36 am
As has been stated by others before, what is the point of having a brain that is capable of logical, rational thought when you have to suppress it just to accept an inconsistent, contradictory bunch of nonsense on faith?
Chayanov, exactly!
28 December 2006, on 1:45 am
That means free will is more powerful than gawd. This of course, means that gawd is not all powerful, which leads into a whole list of things.
Matt, that is what my son and I were discussing earlier today. It seems that human will is more powerful than the will of gawd if he has to go through such theatrics as to go so far as creating and killing his own son/suiciding himself and bringing himself back to life and all that kind of violent bizarrness to gain attention (and that still doesn’t work and he still needs little illiterate messengers to spread his message/threat to believe or burn).
28 December 2006, on 2:14 am
I hope you’ll excuse a bit of pre-2007 rambling…or, maybe it’s just getting 2006 off my mental ledger?
I think the word “Tradition” applies; as in Judaism…to ALL religions, actually. [Tradition reminds me of 'Fiddler on the Roof’ (or, as I called it: “Fiddler off the Wall”)…as a longtime ‘Jobbing musician’, I sure got sick of playing those tunes!]
Way before I heard Dawkins talk about religion being child abuse, I had independently come to that particular conclusion. I know many of us at GifS discussed that somewhat recently.
Something else comes to my mind regarding the whole Fundie inability to look at beliefs the way we, as atheists and Freethinkers try to do…namely…Rationally and Scientifically…
Religions, in their ancient past…indeed, in their very inception…never conceived of the importance of approaching reality using Reason and/or Science. They HAD no science; and Reason was only sneaking into Man’s awareness, as far as we know, in the Greek world of ca. 500 BCE. Even then, it was only among the elite and educated. Cults, with their Mythologies imbedded with symbolism and mysticism ruled. later, over time, a few of them morphed into the Major Religions of today.
In my reading…the Ancient World was not greatly interested in actual literal facts, as we are in the modern world. Mythology was not supposed to be literal history. Nobody really cared about factuality! Of course, in over 2000 years or so, the symbolic mythological stories were gradually literalized, dogmatized, and in becoming ‘Tradition’, were forcibly passed down as literal facts…’infecting’ subsequent generations.
As a result, the notion of Faith, or irrational belief, with its unquestioned acceptance of the most innocuous, often completely dilusional notions, became the ‘Traditions’ we all know.
In other words…Mythology became Literal History…ready for primetime on the History Channel.
As Dawkins so articulately points out…for the young child, it’s almost necessary that absolute trust of whatever a parent tells it, the child believes. Dawkins gives the example that the child cannot afford to test out whether certain things are dangerous; but must accept the ‘teaching’ of the parent…etc. That opens a particularly nasty can of worms, of course, regarding brainwashing.
I guess my main point is [I think]…in ALL religions…FAITH in the TRADITION…is the modus operandi; one which most of us are personally, very familiar with in our own personal histories. Of course the Sacred Text is the handbook, or guide, to whatever is considered important to the particular ‘Tradition’.
Bottom-line: ‘Faith in the Tradition’ ALWAYS trumps Reason and Science!
Oh, Stardust…some random thoughts…
One thing about the ‘Literal’ Garden of Eden shtick that always bothered ME…
What the hell was the point of all the animals and insects? [Wha!...insects had 4 legs? Also, nothing much was mentioned about the fish...and absolutely nothing about the micro world, yada, yada.] Kinda like Sky Daddy saying: “Let’s see how weird I can get; thinking up, and magically making all these poor, dumb…even somewhat ’scary’…creatures. Well…they don’t scare ME, of course! Oh, that was neat; but what’s it going to eat? Hmmm…Watch out, Adam…it’s coming your way!”
Yes…speaking of Adam…
Of course, none of all the above…and the naming of them…satisfied the perhaps, ‘growing’ sexual appetite of Adam. in wondering what to do with his Tinkler [or Tingler?] thing. Did he, [when Gawd wasn't looking...Tee, hee]…perhaps…try sticking it into some of the animals?…Oh, of course, NOT the Lions, Tigers, and Bears…Oh my…NO! “What!…are you crazy?” [I just flashed on Sigfried and Roy!]
Yeah…to continue…when Eve was made from the magical rib operation on the completely bored Adam…OUCH!…when, and how did he approach Eve on the subject of what else he could do with it? [The tinkler, of course...pay attention!]
No Viagra was needed, of course! [That reminds me of the "Smiley Guy at the pool” commercial...you know the one?]
OK, sorry…once you get start on that track…you’re heading for dreaming up a Biblical Porn Site.
Hmmm…did I miss my calling?
OK, returning to Seriousness…
Like Stardust intimated…”The Game” was a set up…just waiting for the initial pinball launch…the pre-destined fatal mistaken ‘choice’…or ‘Sin’… to set off all the built in food chain killing, diseases, punishment, childbirth suffering, insanity…you know the rest.
All to fulfill the great Psychopath’s totally selfish, unquenchable blood thirst.
My conclusion in all this:
It’s Literalized Bronze Age nonsense, no matter what the “Tradition”!
OK, I’m through…but do I feel better?…
not really!
28 December 2006, on 2:15 am
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? — Epicurus (341 BC - 270 BC)
28 December 2006, on 2:56 am
One of these days I’m going to have an insight that no one else has had and thrill the world!
But in a way I’m glad I’m not the only one.
It’s a good arguement still.
Plus I love how we have “gawd given” free will, yet he threatens torture if we use it.
Seriously, the only difference between gawd and malevolent dictator is that the malevolent dictator is something that actually exists.
28 December 2006, on 3:23 pm
Hi there, I just wanted to come out of my lurking space and relay my appreciation for this site. I love reading all your articles and intelligent comments.
I was brought up without religion and seeing as I’m from a country that to my mind doesn’t put much emphasis on religion I remained faith-free my entire life. (I’m Dutch btw, just to clarify that) For a while now I’ve been more interested in religion/atheism mainly because of my interest in American politics. It is truly beyond me that there are people who believe in a mythical character and then try to base laws upon this belief. Then again I’m rather elitist and prefer the people I interact with to actually have a logical bone in their body.
Since I don’t know any religious people who believe as zealously as a lot people that have been described here I cannot really fathom the frustration some of you must feel daily.
Anyway, this was supposed to be a small comment to voice my appreciation but somehow turned into some rambling on my part. My apologies. And again..thank you.
28 December 2006, on 4:00 pm
Essentially we are talking about ‘theodicy’ here, but rather than go into it myself, allow me to redirect you to this rather good explanation on Wiki.
28 December 2006, on 4:04 pm
I love this explanation in particular:
Ingenious, huh?
28 December 2006, on 4:09 pm
Old Git, I hear this one a lot from fundie relatives:
28 December 2006, on 4:11 pm
God’s ultimate purpose is to glorify Himself (which, by definition, He alone is infinitely entitled to, without vanity). He allows evil to exist so that we will appreciate goodness all the more.
Old Git - and in his “divine wisdom” couldn’t he come up with a better and more peaceful and loving way to attain his “ultimate purpose” than to torment his creations with evilness?
28 December 2006, on 4:18 pm
Welcome Nathalie, Glad you came out of lurking in the shadows to comment.
Yes, the frustration we feel daily because of religion being in our faces every which way we turn is the reason for websites like this. We need a place to “vent” those frustrations. Feel free to jump in and comment any time you wish.
28 December 2006, on 4:45 pm
Stardust you said:
Then, logically, if evil is nor really evil, then good cannot really be good, since the one can exist only in comparison with the other.
Or as the Dao has it: the one gives birth to the two.
28 December 2006, on 4:50 pm
BTW, Just read that Richard Dawkins is an ordained minister, and can legally officiate in weddings etc. I read this is an old Guardian biography (I can provide the link if anyone wants it). More entertaining, however, is that anyone can become one, free, gratis and for nothing. All you have to do is visit here.
Apparently RD keeps his hanging in the toilet!
Think I’ll order one of those myself, LOL!
28 December 2006, on 4:53 pm
Stardust, That ordination’s just for you, because with it you are empowered to carry out the ‘instant absolvement of sins’, which means your fundie relatives will be queuing up for your services, LOL!
28 December 2006, on 4:54 pm
For completeness, here’s the link to the guardin’s bio on RD: click here
28 December 2006, on 4:55 pm
Sorry for typos!
28 December 2006, on 4:55 pm
FYI, I have an excellent book titled, Anti - Christ, which covers the origins and evolution of the concept of the DEVIL, by Bernard McGinn, ISBN 0-06-065282-9
28 December 2006, on 4:58 pm
What cracks me up is that fundies believe that what are considered character flaws in humans (such as jealousy, narcissism and quick-temper) are virtues in God.
28 December 2006, on 5:01 pm
And how about his order “Thou shall not kill”? Seem he suffers from amnesia too! LOL
28 December 2006, on 5:33 pm
I had this argument over the holiday break. *sigh* In the end, I was not so nice as you seem to be Stardust. I said, “I simply don’t believe in gods, yours or any others. If you want to believe in your god, fine, but I reserve the right to believe that you’re worshipping one sick twisted fuck of a bastard.”
28 December 2006, on 5:39 pm
Audrey,
I think it’s the other way round. One sick twisted fuck is worshipping a (non-existent)bastard!
28 December 2006, on 6:08 pm
Old Git, That would be HILARIOUS! I wonder if I should give my husband that idea because he would probably do it!
28 December 2006, on 6:10 pm
Audrey, I should probably just come out and say it like that because I end up getting “banned” from communicating with them even when I ask them nicely not to proseltyze to me via email, mail, etc.
28 December 2006, on 6:57 pm
Holy crap, Old Git…you’re better than Santa with all those little gems you sprinkled in the comment stream. You know…instant ordination, instant forgiveness of sin, with a Plenary indulgence; just like the Catholics!
I followed the links; and I must say, I DO like the “Ministry in a Box” item…Yikes, with a Doctor of Divinity Degree, no less! All for 139 US smackers!
I wonder if I could perform a legitimate marriage for my partner and me. Hmmm…
Hey, if people like Little Richard, Rosie Grier [Ex-NFL athlete]…and most impressive of all…Richard Dawkins…can have minister added after a slash…and have a framed Certificate strategically placed in a prominant space on their wall…why not any one if us?
We’re all equal in this Universe…Roit?
That IS quite a nice Bio of Dawkins at Guardian!
Thanks for the links, Old Git.
Hmmm…
Let’s see…ChuckA: Bachelor of Arts/Musician/Private Music Teacher/Atheist/GifS Commenter/Plenary Indulgence Counselor/Doctor of Divinity/Egomaniacal Bullshitter/…
IT…
COULD…
WORK!!!
28 December 2006, on 7:33 pm
Hey Chuck,
Can I join your church?
28 December 2006, on 8:40 pm
Audrey said,
“I simply don’t believe in gods, yours or any others. If you want to believe in your god, fine, but I reserve the right to believe that you’re worshipping one sick twisted fuck of a bastard.”
I agree completely. My mother is driving me nuts with religious belief. Whenever I point out the horrible parts of the bible it’s waved off as “symbolic”. She lectures at her church every Sunday, (wasn’t there a verse in the bible that condemns women for speaking in church?) One day I decided to go to the church with her near Xmas and some of the shit that goes on there really goes on there. (This was last Xmas) The preacher went off about the “war on Xmas” and how xians are oppressed. I swear, it took all of my self control to keep seated. I was going to go up there and smack the shit out of this guy. I’ve had dreams of going back to that church, going up to the front and reading some of the articles I’ve found on other blogs.
What’s gotten me really upset is that my mother takes what this man says at face value.
28 December 2006, on 8:50 pm
Hello there,i would like to explain my thinking on all this good vs. evil stuff
First off God gives people free will…..correct?
Yes, but what truly is free will?
There are bascially 3 choices God gives us to make, To do what his will is (Good), To do what God doesnt care about (neutral)(like play a game of cards), or not to do his will (Evil). God created us with the ability to do as we wish, to either follow his will or not. He allows free will in all humans. Evil is truly just the opposite of Gods will. God created the option to not follow him because he does not want mindless Robots loving him. Just like any normal person would only want genuine love, not forced love. God wants Genuine love. Therefore God created freewill but is not himself an Evil being.
Gooday to you all,
best of wishes
28 December 2006, on 8:54 pm
I swear, it took all of my self control to keep seated.
Advisor Moppet - I know how you feel. Having to sit through little prayers and listening to gawd this and gawd that, it’s really hard to contain myself. It’s getting more difficult with each family gathering where fundies are present. I refuse to sit through a church service anymore unless absolutely necessary…like funerals and weddings of close family members only.
28 December 2006, on 9:12 pm
Stardust,
This was for me, more of a spying type of thing. I wanted to see what my mother was getting involved with. As far as Xians making judgments about us without even talking to us….
I was discussing jesus with my mother when she had said that Father Jack (not his real name) thinks that I’m an agnostic. Meanwhile I’m thinking, how can he make that kind of a judgment about me without even meeting me or talking to me?
I’ll make a judgment about him…….
I know that he’s wrong about my point of view.
28 December 2006, on 9:19 pm
I’ve actually had a conversation/debate with a friend once because I do not believe in such a thing as “evil”. He looked at me like I was insane or something. But is it really that strange to not believe in some sort of metaphysical (am I using this word correctly?)entity-like “evil”? I think evil is purely an adjective. There are things I consider evil (although I hardly use the word), but pure evil..don’t believe in it. Which logically leads to not believing in pure good either I suppose. The thing is I’m alright with that. I do not need abstracts like this to feel comfortable with my life.
I have been asked what I think the purpose of life is then. But to me there is no “purpose”. There isn’t one single goal I as a human being need to accomplish like some sort of task in GTA: San Andreas. Life has whatever purpose I choose to give to it.
BTW Chuck, I really love that Epicurus quote.
28 December 2006, on 9:42 pm
OK guys..it’s been awhile…FUNDIE ALERT COMMENT #39!
Josh, it is not free will when there is only one option that will not get you put in a lake of fire for all eternity. God wants you to be mindless little robots, or else he will destroy you. Don’t you get it? There is no free will when there is only do or die.
28 December 2006, on 9:48 pm
Also we have been visited by evangelizing Thomas in an archived post here:
Rapture Lunatics Enraptured by Mideast Turmoil
Things are becoming a bit more lively around here recently.
28 December 2006, on 10:11 pm
Regarding Josh, I bet he doesn’t bother to return to have an actual discussion. As with most fundies, he’s probably a hit-and-run poster.
Excellent entry, Stardust.
28 December 2006, on 10:32 pm
In regard to “free will”: if god is omniscient, then it knows what one will choose to begin with so you can’t have both!
28 December 2006, on 10:35 pm
Welcome D, and thanks.
Josh may be back, but you are right when you say he won’t be back for an actual discussion. He has been here before and keeps popping in and out because he is a masochist and likes being “persecuted.”
29 December 2006, on 1:25 am
If you must torment yourselves with the religious drivel. (TAJ your a masochist). LOL Take a spin by craigslist discusssion forums and click on atheist. WOOOOOOOOO EEEEEEE.
29 December 2006, on 1:38 am
666, I’ve come to the same conclusion, yet people will STILL argue with you over it. Their favorite phrase is “he doesn’t make you do it.”
But they don’t seem to understand that he doesn’t have to force you to do something. The supposed CHOICE is just an illusion.
29 December 2006, on 6:06 am
Josh said:
According to the inerrant word of Josh’s god, it is therefore good to do carry out all of the following punishments, since his god demands it:
By Josh’s own admission, therefore, brutally murdering people for any of these so-called transgressions is not evil.
Does anyone else here think that Josh is an inmate in a (hopefully) secure mental instituion?
If he’s not, why not?
29 December 2006, on 6:40 am
Stardust said:
Agree entirely, Star. When I was a lad, such choices were known as “Hobson’s Choice”, or ‘take it or leave it’. As the Penguin Dictionary of Historical Slang says: “Hobson’s Choice - coloquial, first recorded 1649″ and it goes on to define it as effectively having no choice, giving a number of examples, including this one - “Can any woman think herself happy that’s obliged to marry only with Hobson’s choice?”
To call such a thing ‘free will’ is a travesty of language.
29 December 2006, on 7:00 am
Nathalie,
I share your views re the existence of good/evil, and whether one chooses to refer to them as absolutes is equally specious, since the one exists only by being defined by the other. Something that Buddhists and Daoists knew hundreds of years before xtains appeared on the scene. Naturally, fundies argue that I am wrong, and that for ‘good’ to exist, it is not necessary to have a concept of ‘evil’, which leaves them with the impossibility of explaining what ‘evil’ is without reference to ‘good’ (and vice versa).
AS for life having a purpose, my favourite reply when pushed is that it has none, since I believe in no-thing,(alternative translation of the Chinese, ‘wu-hsin’), and that really seems to drive my interlocutors nuts. They just don’t seem to be able to comprehend that one doesn’t have to assign a purpose to life in order to experience it fully.
29 December 2006, on 8:02 am
First off God gives people free will…..correct?
Hmm, I think you’ve come to the wrong site to be making such statements (and yes I know that practically speaking it’s a question but both you and I know better). I don’t believe in God and find “free will” a meaningless phrase. We all have the ability to make choices, therefore we all have a will which by this line of thinking is free. The only creatures that do not have free will are angels..guess what I don’t believe in them either.
Old Git (does one need to put the The in when addressing you?), I’ve had that happen too. People who do not comprehend that I (or others) do not need to assign purpose. The strangest thing about this though that in my opinion they do not assign a lot of purpose to their lives. To be good merely because your God demands this of you seems to me to be a lot less worthy than to be good because it is the right/moral thing to do.
The Buddhists and Daoists sure had it right. What amazes me though is that, without trying to sound conceited, I had figured out the necessity for evil to exist for there to be good by the time I was twelve. Therefore the inability of “grown-ups” for comprehending this on a purely logical level astounds me.
29 December 2006, on 11:08 am
Old Git, my Baptist family members have adjusted this for themselves to be comfortable with…they say that it is all in the “interpretation” and by “death” in these passages it really means eternal punishment in hell. Isn’t it “convenient” to have such a flexible mythology book to live by where one can bend the words and meanings anyway one wants to?
29 December 2006, on 12:05 pm
Yeah, Stardust, that’s pretty typical. Whenever they quote scripture they usually mean it literally, mainly with jeebus’ supposed quotes and such. Funny that no one wants to quote Leviticus and Deuteronomy literally in everyday life. That stuff is, at best, barbaric, and at worst, criminal at the worst possible level.
29 December 2006, on 12:15 pm
Revenant, Some Baptist churches and other evangelicals have tossed out the old testament entirely. When I was a teenager and went to the Baptist church for the couple of years my mother was trying to find herself after the Lutheran church wasn’t comforting enough after her mother died, (funny how that happens so often when a loved one dies…people go hunting for comfort from a magical being)…well…that Baptist church only had the New Testaments in their church pews. And the Old Testament was only referred to in reference to the creation story, Noah and the flood, and other little stories they picked and chose from. But mostly it was Paul, Paul, Paul…and Revelations, revelations, revelations…and hell, hell, hell….
29 December 2006, on 12:38 pm
Having spent some 40 years in the xian mindset, I came to understand evil as a force somewhat akin to gravity… the suggestion was, it’s a natural law governing our existence & that our only hope of overcoming it was to embrace god’s nature…
… it’s really a defeatist attitude… & no one ever explained why a good god would institute such a law of nature…
29 December 2006, on 12:42 pm
Stardust,
Any so-called believer who discards the OT has also effectively discarded the NT, since the latter does NOT stand without the former - unless one accepts that the (non-existent) figure, Jesus, was not ‘the Son of God’, since without the OT, ‘God’ does not exist!
Frankly, I am disillusioned by people like Dawkins, since he is far too kind to these religious types who twist and distort their own ‘truth’ rather than accept the real truth. Either they are complete liars, neurotic personalities, delusional psychopaths, ignorant morons, mendacious manipulators, or, more likely, a combination of all of these.
Piling them all into a heap and setting fire to them would be far too kind - and would also be bad for the planet!
Maybe we should just bury them in excrement instead!
29 December 2006, on 12:49 pm
Nathalie said:
You may use the definitive article if you wish, Nathalie.
Your statement, “The strangest thing about this though that in my opinion they do not assign a lot of purpose to their lives”, is one which I would agree with. Without this ‘god’ and his threats/promises, their lives are generally pointless.
Good for you for realising that. Unfortunately, many adults do not grow up, intellectually.
29 December 2006, on 1:47 pm
Proof that ‘god’ exists!
Yes, folks, I AM converted. My last post (#59) was a mess of html tags, and I apologised in the immediately following post before going off to have tea. Now, on my return, I find that my messy post has been corrected, and my apologetic one removed.
Now that’s what I call proof that god exists!
(PS: Thanks, Star, for I expect it was you ‘wot dunnit’, but if it was another worthy, thanks to them too!)
29 December 2006, on 2:01 pm
Old Git…you have been blessed by the omnipotent Stardust…peas be unto you.
29 December 2006, on 2:05 pm
Josh is just a hit and run poster. He dropped a comment on the Evangelical Atheist site last week. Both Stardust and I gave him long and well thought out reasons why we reject Christianity. He has not deigned to respond since.
29 December 2006, on 2:45 pm
tommy, You are right…Josh is nothing but a troll. He doesn’t go to atheist blogs for the discussion, he just wants to drop his turds and run off.
29 December 2006, on 3:24 pm
Josh…has been here before and keeps popping in and out because he is a masochist and likes being “persecuted.”
What a cheapskate!
I make my clients PAY ME for that sort of service!
29 December 2006, on 5:14 pm
actually friends i am not a hit and runner, and there is probably more then one Josh out there. Oh and i am here for good, clean, logical, scientific, and historical disccusion. The only reason i didnt post sooner is because i was at my friends hous spending the night. So let the disccusions begin. for an athiest i wonder is there really and good or evil or is it just personal preference?
29 December 2006, on 5:22 pm
oh and last time i came to this site almost all of my comments were modded. I followed all the rules, im not here to cause anger, but dabte is good and will sharpen the wits.As it says in Proverbs 27:17 “Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens anotother.” So if i cant put my whole thought down its really not fair, so lets play fair.
Gooday, ladys and Gents i hope to speak again and soon
29 December 2006, on 6:04 pm
I honestly did not modify or tamper with Josh’s last two comments before I let them go through. They are as they came in, I swear.
Josh says, I followed all the rules, im not here to cause anger, but dabte is good and will sharpen the wits
Before you join in here Josh, can you do something for me and go find a dictionary and sharpen up your grammar and spelling, as well?
I followed all the rules
Also, don’t you know it is not moral to lie?
29 December 2006, on 6:14 pm
for an athiest i wonder is there really and good or evil or is it just personal preference?
Josh…you are off topic already. You have not addressed the point of my post. Where did evil come from in the first place and why did the gawd of your mythology start these dicking games with his creations? Why put evil there to choose in the first place? Please take note that we have already discussed the free will and gawd giving his creatures a choice answer.
29 December 2006, on 6:57 pm
Josh,
Your last couple of post contained so many errors that they were almost unintelligible. Now I do not say that by way of criticism, for many of my posts also contain errors of one kind or another. However, my excuse is that I am a very old geriatric, suffering from incipient dementia (which impairs my critical faculties, such as they are), arthritic fingers (which impairs my ability to type), and rheumy eyes (which makes it difficult for me to see my errors).
What is your excuse?
29 December 2006, on 7:02 pm
Old Git,
Since Josh has said he couldn’t get back to us right away because he was “spending the night at a friend’s house” he either a)is an illiterate adult who spent the night with his girlfriend, b) is an illiterate adult who spent the night with his boyfriend, or c) just a kid who still likes to go on sleepovers and isn’t fully educated yet.
29 December 2006, on 7:06 pm
Josh,
You asked:
for an athiest i wonder is there really and good or evil or is it just personal preference? (sic)
Assuming for a moment that there are such things as good and evil in an objective sense, the choices available to an atheist are just the same as those for a theist,anyone else for that matter. In other words, atheist may act in a way which may be described as ‘good’ or in a way which may be described as ‘evil’, but that has nothing to do with atheism per se, or even atheism qua atheism. Gottit?
But even if good and evil exist only in the subjective and relative sense, the answer given in the foregoing paragraph is equally applicable. Gotthat?
29 December 2006, on 7:12 pm
Star,
You missed out (d); he’s just another illiterate red-neck fundie-loon - the clue is in the quote he gave: As it says in Proverbs 27:17 “Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens anotother.”(sic)
29 December 2006, on 7:28 pm
Old Git, actually the KJV passage says:
Countenance, according to Merriam-Webster is
One site’s interpretation of this passage is contradictory to the way that Josh has used it.
It is in reference to two friends of like minds complimenting each other. I guess that could happen here if we can come to mutual understanding and respect between atheists and xians, but that has not yet been our experience with Josh.
29 December 2006, on 7:43 pm
Star,
Allow me to correct your typo, before some fundie does, the King James that was behind the (then) new translation of the bible was King James the Sixth (i.e. KJIV, not KJV) of Scotland and King James the First of England,named as such because he was the first monarch to amalgamate the two thrones and nations into one.
Incidentally, old gits like me also know ‘countenance’ as another word for physiognomy, or face. As Chambers Dictionary has it: “countenance noun 1 face; expression or appearance. 2 support; patronage. verb (countenanced, countenancing) 1 to favour or support. 2 to allow; to tolerate. give countenance to something to support it, eg a proposal, etc. keep one’s countenance to remain composed, manage not to laugh, etc.
ETYMOLOGY: 13c: from French contenance, from Latin continentia self-control.” (Incidentally, Chambers Dictionary was the definitive dictionary published in Scotland when I was a lad.)
29 December 2006, on 7:46 pm
Allow me to correct your typo, before some fundie does, the King James that was behind the (then) new translation of the
Old Git, my abbreviation KJV simply meant King James Version.
29 December 2006, on 7:50 pm
Ha, Star,
Now you can correct my typo (geriatric imbecile that I am). Should be ‘KJVI’ for King James the sixth, not KJIV as I (dyslexically) typed.
I’m always doing that sort of thing, referring to ‘left’ when I mean ‘right’. Guess my PCB has a few dry joints in it, LOL!
29 December 2006, on 7:52 pm
But, Star, I’m a Scot, and we always refer to it as the KGVI version, being both dour calvinistic protestants and inordinately proud of our despotic kings and queens.
29 December 2006, on 7:58 pm
BTW, Have you heard of the KGB version?
In the beginning there was the gulag, comrade!
Maybe it’s time I went to bed!
29 December 2006, on 8:03 pm
BTW, Have you heard of the KGB version?
In the beginning there was the gulag, comrade!
Maybe it’s time I went to bed!
LOL! Nighty night Old Git! It’s pretty late there, isn’t it around 2 a.m.?
29 December 2006, on 8:21 pm
According to my wonderful Windows OS (snigger) the time is 00:18. It’s not so much the lateness of the hour, but the quantity of the evil Al K. Hol I have imbibed that has caused my temporary insanity.
(PS: It was an excellent bottle of vintage port!)
29 December 2006, on 9:26 pm
Sorry for the errors. I will try harder not to have so many typos. I was just in a hurry. Oh and by the way i spent the night at my friends house….like a sleepover because im only 17.
Just in case you were curious. Oh and old Git very nice explanation, thank you. By the way stardust did not mod anything ive put down, she is telling the truth. Ive just had past bad experiences. Anywho I will go….until next time
Have a Good night…
29 December 2006, on 9:46 pm
Josh said: By the way stardust did not mod anything ive put down, she is telling the truth.
Did anyone here doubt that?
Josh…when you come back you might want to attempt to respond to the points made in the post and what I have asked you again in comment #68 and to what Old Git has said in comments # 50, 51, & 71.
And also, you haven’t responded to Nathalie’s comment #53.
Josh, are you just coming in and out for spelling and grammar lessons, or to say “howdy” and “bye” to us, or do you really have something you want to say here?
30 December 2006, on 12:37 am
I should probably just come out and say it like that because I end up getting “banned” from communicating with them even when I ask them nicely not to proseltyze to me via email, mail, etc.
Stardust, if you really want to get the point across and drive them nuts, you could always get yourself a Mailwasher account. I bought the Pro version in August (mainly because I handle the emails for 10 client websites and got truly pissed off with having to delete 1500+ bits of spam every day). You can set the paid option up to bounce or delete emails depending on where they’ve come from, the subject matter or, using filters, what’s in them. And it’s very cheap - cost me 15GBP, which would be about 30USD I think, as a one off. (Unfortunately they haven’t come up with an option to customise your bounces yet, but I’m keeping my fingers crossed.)
Wishing all GifSters a Happy, Healthy and Fundie-free 2007 - even though I know that last isn’t going to happen…
30 December 2006, on 12:42 am
Joules, I will have to check into that Mailwasher account. With all the fundie forwards I get, it might just be what I need.
Happy New Year to you, too!
(Fundie free? Only if I become a hermit and don’t answer the door, phone or read email!)
30 December 2006, on 12:38 pm
They get quite flustered with this debate and come quite close to telling me to just go to hell.
Oh, Stardust, this post is so funny! And xians will no doubt want to attribute gawd with the creation of logic which you use so effectively to kick those fundies in their pew-molded asses.
31 December 2006, on 12:42 am
Old Git:
AS for life having a purpose, my favourite reply when pushed is that it has none, since I believe in no-thing,(alternative translation of the Chinese, ‘wu-hsin’)
Ummm…wu-hsin actually translates to ‘no-mindedness’ Wu is the ‘no’, Hsin is the mind.
Wu Chi is nothing.
But that’s a pretty good answer. Kin I borrow it, purty please?
31 December 2006, on 5:10 am
Actually, KA, whilst ‘hsin’ is often translated as mind, that is not accurate as the word is actually one of those Chinese words that defy translation.
Hsin means mind, heart, soul, spirit, and each singly as well as all inclusively. However, the famous Zen poem of ‘Hsin-Hsin-Ming’ is most accurately translated as ‘Inscribed On The Believing Mind’; this poem was written by Seng-ts’an, the Third Zen Patriarch (d.o.d. 606 CE), and the doctrine of ‘no-mind’ is one of the most important in Ch’an/Zen Buddhism - as indeed it is in Mayhayana Buddhism.
When one acts with no-mind, one acts spontaneously, without the intercession of conscious cerebration, but directly, experientally. Since one acts without the intervention of the self, or ‘I’, in a sense one acts without acting, and there is nothing separating the actor from that which is acted upon. In this respect, it can be said that there is ‘no-thing’ that is acting, and ‘no-thing’ that is being acted upon. And of course you can use ‘wu-hsin’ in this way, KA.
I append a copy of the poem below with the proviso that the Mods can delete it if (a) it is too long, and/or (b) inappropriate.