firedragon
Veteran Member
I think you should clarify what she means. The Hindu philosophy has a very different idea about these things like evil and good. That dividing line is not so simple.
Just clarify.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Answering Atheists
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
I think you should clarify what she means. The Hindu philosophy has a very different idea about these things like evil and good. That dividing line is not so simple.
Just clarify.
Magical Wand
Active Member
Abrahamic religions can be understood as being in accordance with the definition of classical theism. Quote from wiki: "Classical theism is a form of monotheism. Whereas most monotheists agree that God is, at minimum, all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely good..."
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Not to me. The better alternative would have been no suffering before or after (though I do not believe in any 'after').
firedragon
Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
I find it amusing when theists presume to speak for Atheists without actually talking to them... We're right here. Ask us what we actually think.
None of the OP's points are Atheistic contentions that I've ever encountered. I actually find they have more in common with people simply questioning their own faith. They're contentions about the nature or character of a god, from a particular group of theists... But I digress.
An Atheist's contention might be, say, something like this: "I find the very idea of deities to be ridiculous. Can you give me one good reason why I should even stop to consider the existence of your magic invisible sky person?"
None of the OP's points are Atheistic contentions that I've ever encountered. I actually find they have more in common with people simply questioning their own faith. They're contentions about the nature or character of a god, from a particular group of theists... But I digress.
An Atheist's contention might be, say, something like this: "I find the very idea of deities to be ridiculous. Can you give me one good reason why I should even stop to consider the existence of your magic invisible sky person?"
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Are you talking of things perceived or things as they are? As an Advatist Hindu (a believer in non-duality) and a strong atheist, I believe in two realities. What we perceive is a story created by our mind. This is a truth at a different level of reality. At the absolute level, there are only atoms and molecules, forces and energy. In that (absolute reality), there are no people, no rapes or murders.
Firedragon, the dividing line is very clear. Perception and actual.
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
I think you just demonstrated @KAT-KAT's point.
Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain.
nPeace
Veteran Member
The OP does not say the argument is specific to Atheists. Nor does the title.
Answering Atheists arguments, refers to just that - answering Atheist's arguments.
It does not mean that Atheists created the argument, and incorporated it into an anthem. It just means Atheists use it, and they do.
They are Atheists right, not something else, when they do.
Just be? Do you mean like magic, as we see on television... "Abrakadabra" "BRAM!".. that sort of thing?
Or do you mean like the Bible describes... where God worked, and progressively brought things to be?
If you mean the later. I agree... and that is just how it is. God is working to have his will be.
Jesus said his father keeps working up till now.
Unfortunately, some persons think that what they want, should be... at the snap of a finger.
We live in a fast passed world, and that's what we see, but God is not like that. He does things in his time, at at his pace, because it that his will might be... not ours.
(2 Peter 3:9) . . .Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.
(2 Peter 3:3, 4)
Is that argument logical?
Let's consider it.
Perfect, I am going to assume, means, in this case, something out of line with what a perfect God wants.
Is it fair to assume that something cannot become defective on the part of another, other than the maker?
For example, a manufacture makes the perfect vehicle, and puts it on the market.
Someone purchases the vehicle. Takes it home, and does not follow the directions provided by the manufacturer. They are also reckless and careless with its use.
It results in problems.
Is the manufacturer to blame? Did he make an imperfect product, or did it become imperfect due to its misuse?
Some mistakenly think that perfection means, not subject to defect, but that view is not within line of the use of the term "perfect".
Perfect is relative.
The only absolute perfect one, or perfection is outside the universe - God.
He determines perfection, just as the manufacturer does with his products.
The manufacturer will say, "This one is perfect. This is not," and he will scrap the imperfect one, or make it better, because it does not meet his standard of what perfect is.
Likewise the creator. Perfection is relative to him. It's perfect to him, if it meets his standard.
So while the first man and woman were perfect when God created them. Their perfection was conditional. They were subject to defect if they failed to listen and obey.
That is what resulted from their disobedience.
(Deuteronomy 32:5) . . .They are the ones who have acted corruptly. They are not his children, the defect is their own.. . .
Think of it this way...
You commit murder. You are sentenced to die, based on the law, which is expected to be carried out, to serve justice.
Because of what you did, your six small children will suffer, as you were their only bread winner.
Should the law decide that you not be executed for your heinous crime, or should they execute you, and serve justice.... Even if it means that they and others can offer to help your children?
Now, please answer that with fairness, and not be biased because you are the one involved, and you want to get off the hook.
According to the Bible. Adam sinned, a sin deserving of death. God did not go against his standards of justice, and righteousness, by reversing the death penalty, even though Adam's sin brought suffering on all his children.
However, he offers help to Adam's children, in order to relieve them of their suffering, and grant them the glorious freedom of the children of God. Romans 8:18-25
(Romans 5:15-19)
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by one man’s trespass many died, how much more did the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift by the undeserved kindness of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to many! Also, it is not the same with the free gift as with the way things worked through the one man who sinned. For the judgment after one trespass was condemnation, but the gift after many trespasses was a declaration of righteousness. For if by the trespass of the one man death ruled as king through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one person, Jesus Christ! So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, so too through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is their being declared righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one person many will be made righteous.
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by one man’s trespass many died, how much more did the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift by the undeserved kindness of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to many! Also, it is not the same with the free gift as with the way things worked through the one man who sinned. For the judgment after one trespass was condemnation, but the gift after many trespasses was a declaration of righteousness. For if by the trespass of the one man death ruled as king through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one person, Jesus Christ! So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, so too through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is their being declared righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one person many will be made righteous.
Is that not moral?
What do you think. Is the law to blame for your children suffering, because they executed you?
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
I can't clarify what someone else means when it makes no sense to me. Surely she doesn't mean someone can commit rape or incest or murder and it is not evil to do so.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Would you say that God can not do something like 'Abrakadabra' ?
Then he wouldn't be omnipotent, for omnipotence entails the utmost power.
Think of it like this: Who is more powerful, a being that does Abrakadabra or a being that needs to wait thousands of years to get what he wants?
nPeace
Veteran Member
People who say they don't believe in evil, I don't believe are stating their beliefs accurately.
If someone breaks someone's house, kidnaps and rapes a child. Tortures and kills it... to the Hindu, I ask, is that evil? What is it, if not evil? (I believe Hindus differ in beliefs, because i spoke to a Hindu, who believes that's evil)
However, I think they would be more accurate in saying, evil is determined by the person. So for example, one person may view a particular act as evil, but another may not. Somewhat like people today view morals.
So they do not believe is an "absolute" or standard of evil.
That seems more of an accurate concept to me.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Is that an explanation of Evil and Good? No its not.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I didnt ask you to clarify TrueBeliever. I asked you to clarify from her. I may have said it wrong.
AlexanderG
Active Member
Allowing suffering for a permanently lasting freedom from corruption, seems pretty moral to me.
How can that not be moral?
It would actually be evidence too of one who is all knowing, all wise and all powerful. Isn't it?
Because it would be more moral to simply create freedom from corruption, without suffering. Something plus suffering is less moral than the something alone. If a situation can be morally improved upon, then it is not morally perfect.
It may come down to how you define "morally perfect," but I've never heard a convincing argument that such a definition could include needless suffering.
AlexanderG
Active Member
The problem with your argument is that it is entirely ad hoc, and it can be used to give equal, identical weight to the notion that this theistic god is evil. A god that introduces imperfections of "goodness" in order to achieve a greater evil. Either explanation sufficiently explains the state of affairs we see in the world, and both are ad hoc speculation. For example:
If a person never knows hope, they could never know true despair.
If people never felt comfort, they could never fully suffer in agony.
If people never felt love, they could never feel bereavement.
"So one might argue that a truly evil and truly hateful God might intentionally throw eternal souls out of heavenly misery into human avatars in a sort of transitory video game environment so that they might fully develop as persons, so that they might come to know what human suffering and degradation mean."
Premise #1 doesn't apply to all religious views of gods.
Premise #5 is a bad assumption. What we call "evil"
could play some role we simply don't not fathomable
by mere humans.
God's existence isn't disproven.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I think the dad who takes his bawling, tearful child to get an injection to protect it from some disease is morally upright.
I think the dad who allows his child to get an operation, though painful, and the child will have to face that pain for weeks or months, is morally upright.
What about you?
God is not oblivious to the pain of hungry children. I think of the pain of hungry people, when I am hungry, and don't hurry to eat.
God knows the pain better than I do.
Should God end the world now? Should he panic, and say, I can't take this suffering? Where would that leave you, or millions?
(2 Peter 3:9) . . .Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.
That sound quite moral, doesn't it?
No. God is patient. Unlike us, he does not panic. Unlike us, his hands are not tied, so that he can't do what we can't.
(Matthew 11:4-6)
In reply Jesus said to them: “Go and report to John what you are hearing and seeing: The blind are now seeing and the lame are walking, the lepers are being cleansed and the deaf are hearing, the dead are being raised up and the poor are being told the good news. Happy is the one who finds no cause for stumbling in me.”
In reply Jesus said to them: “Go and report to John what you are hearing and seeing: The blind are now seeing and the lame are walking, the lepers are being cleansed and the deaf are hearing, the dead are being raised up and the poor are being told the good news. Happy is the one who finds no cause for stumbling in me.”
When we see the whole picture, we understand. When we see pieces of the situation, we judge it based on limited facts.
It's good to consider all the facts. That helps a lot.
Thus, not only is God morally upright, but he is loving, just, and wise... not to mention, we will all see his power... in most cases, in a way we wish we didn't. However, the righteous one will be blessed by that power... according to the Bible.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Yeah. Especially do you enjoy it more, when you are seeing different things, which you might not have paid attention to before.
Evil is in itself a loaded concept. Different cultures, religions, and even people have different concepts of "desirable and undesirable" from each other - some with something close to your idea of good and evil, some have something else entirely.
Everyone can agree that the examples you provide are horrendous, but to attribute something as "evil" is to give it extra meaning, just like "sin." Sin and evil only applies to folks who believe in sin and evil as concepts, and applies little value to those who don't. Do you see the value in Dharma? How about Frith? If you don't believe in those ideas, maybe apply that notion to those who do believe those things and look at your idea of what good and evil are.