Not necessarily. These things are so parochial and, frankly, wrong that, coming from people who purportedly believe in logic and empiricism, they are just ridiculous.
(Saint) Thomas Aquinas – who of course has some degree of standing in Christianity – acknowledged a couple objections to Christianity.
The first one was basically what the demotivational poster here identifies – the existence of evil in the world.
The second is just as interesting: Basically, the possibility of explaining the world as we know it as though there were no God. In other words, the same thing scientists went through with “aether” 100 years ago – eventually, there was no need to include it as a factor, and they realized maybe the concept was… unnecessary.
I don’t know. Never had a burning bush equivalent in my life. Not hostile to the idea. I’m just not there.
Or not only is g0d imaginary but so is evil. Name something that is universally evil??? Don't even try to mention killing, cuz if it is evil then most 'moral religious' groups are busy being evil.
I've been mulling this over the last several days, and it occurred to be that, like Karl Marx and Ayn Rand in an earlier comment of mine in an unrelated thread, Epicurus is very good at describing the problem, but fails to come up with a viable solution.
When God created the universe, he included two things (for better or worse): free will for humankind; and the laws of physics for the physical realm.
In order to prevent evil, God would have to do one of the following: strip humans of their free will, forcing them to only do good; or suspend the laws of physics (e.g. if someone tried to shoot you, the bullets would fall harmlessly to earth instead of striking you).
Would you like to live in a world of automatons, where the actions of every human being (including your own) were predetermined? Or would you like to live in a world where the laws of physics were unpredictable, where you never knew from one moment to the next whether objects would act in the same way twice? Would such a world be the more benevolent than the one we live in now?
For all its pain, I'd prefer to live in a world where people can choose to do good and persuade others to do the same, a world in which we can take those predictable laws of physics, and using our own God-given ingenuity, come up with ways to make our environment less evil.
God doesn't act because he wants us to.
P.S. to KatyDid: I'm glad you're not hostile to the idea of a burning bush equivalent. Last Sunday on 60 Minutes, I saw Christopher Hitchens (probably my favorite atheist - I hope you're not jealous, Ted!). Steve Kroft asked him if there's anything that would change his mind about the existence of God, given his weakened state? (Hitchens is suffering from Stage 4 esophageal cancer). Here's his answer (I watched the online video several times to get it as accurate as possible):
"Well, I ought never to say that there's nothing which would change my mind, so shall I just say that no evidence has -- or has yet been presented that would change my mind."
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.
"IF able AND unwilling THEN malevolent"
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. These things are so parochial and, frankly, wrong that, coming from people who purportedly believe in logic and empiricism, they are just ridiculous.
"Winning..." - Isn't that Charlie Sheen's slogan? :)
ReplyDelete"...since 33 A.D. [Anno Domini=Year of Our Lord]" - Shouldn't that be "since 33 A.?."? :)
DP-
ReplyDeleteWhat, if not malevolence?
There's no reasoning with terminally irrational minds. They can justify almost any form of evil and call it good.
ReplyDelete"There's no reasoning with terminally irrational minds. They can justify almost any form of evil and call it good."
ReplyDeleteOr, put another way...
(Saint) Thomas Aquinas – who of course has some degree of standing in Christianity – acknowledged a couple objections to Christianity.
ReplyDeleteThe first one was basically what the demotivational poster here identifies – the existence of evil in the world.
The second is just as interesting: Basically, the possibility of explaining the world as we know it as though there were no God. In other words, the same thing scientists went through with “aether” 100 years ago – eventually, there was no need to include it as a factor, and they realized maybe the concept was… unnecessary.
I don’t know. Never had a burning bush equivalent in my life. Not hostile to the idea. I’m just not there.
Good points, KD.
ReplyDeleteOr not only is g0d imaginary but so is evil.
ReplyDeleteName something that is universally evil???
Don't even try to mention killing, cuz if it is evil then most 'moral religious' groups are busy being evil.
Very true, LL. Evil can be interpreted in different ways by different people. I tend to think of organized religion as an evil.
ReplyDeleteI've been mulling this over the last several days, and it occurred to be that, like Karl Marx and Ayn Rand in an earlier comment of mine in an unrelated thread, Epicurus is very good at describing the problem, but fails to come up with a viable solution.
ReplyDeleteWhen God created the universe, he included two things (for better or worse): free will for humankind; and the laws of physics for the physical realm.
In order to prevent evil, God would have to do one of the following: strip humans of their free will, forcing them to only do good; or suspend the laws of physics (e.g. if someone tried to shoot you, the bullets would fall harmlessly to earth instead of striking you).
Would you like to live in a world of automatons, where the actions of every human being (including your own) were predetermined? Or would you like to live in a world where the laws of physics were unpredictable, where you never knew from one moment to the next whether objects would act in the same way twice? Would such a world be the more benevolent than the one we live in now?
For all its pain, I'd prefer to live in a world where people can choose to do good and persuade others to do the same, a world in which we can take those predictable laws of physics, and using our own God-given ingenuity, come up with ways to make our environment less evil.
God doesn't act because he wants us to.
P.S. to KatyDid: I'm glad you're not hostile to the idea of a burning bush equivalent. Last Sunday on 60 Minutes, I saw Christopher Hitchens (probably my favorite atheist - I hope you're not jealous, Ted!). Steve Kroft asked him if there's anything that would change his mind about the existence of God, given his weakened state? (Hitchens is suffering from Stage 4 esophageal cancer). Here's his answer (I watched the online video several times to get it as accurate as possible):
"Well, I ought never to say that there's nothing which would change my mind, so shall I just say that no evidence has -- or has yet been presented that would change my mind."
"But I like surprises!"
I hope you're all surprised some day.
if atheist are "winning" since 33AD then why does religion still exist and infact growing?
ReplyDeleteAlso on you comment policy you mention "Comments must not be ... or otherwise bigoted."
Um this blog is bigoted..towards religion..just sayin..