Category: god

Imagine believing that the best idea for lighting the planet was to install a hydrogen fusion reactor 93 million miles away that might permanently blind you if you look at it directly.

atheistcartoons:

Christians all over the world were perfectly fine with slavery until Enlightenment thinkers influenced the public discourse to reject it. Over and over again, religious values follow secular values and then take all the credit. 

topic01:

religion-is-a-mental-illness:

Free will refutes an all-knowing god and its “plan.” And vice versa.

When they say that “evil is due to free will” and that “god has a plan,” they’re describing a god that cannot exist. Not just does not exist – cannot exist. This isn’t something that “do you think god is limited by the natural laws of the universe?” will resolve. The attributes themselves are self-refuting, like a “married bachelor.”

religion-is-a-mental-illness:

If your god gave the slightest shit, you wouldn’t have to pray in the first place.

atheostic:

mrmcweasel:

hope-runs-underneath:

questions-for-christians:

If not, why not; but if He does, can He choose evil?

He “can” sin, in the sense that He has the ability to choose (ex. when the devil tempts Jesus). However, He would never sin (or choose evil) because it is not in His nature, it is not who He is

(it’s like if you were like “I’d never murder someone!” not because you don’t have the ability to choose that, but because you never would choose that option. Except that God is infinitely more righteous than you are, and therefore infinitely further from choosing evil)

How exactly can you know that He’s more righteous than me? You don’t even know me.

@hope-runs-underneath here’s some other problems with your logic. 

I look at the Bible from a literary criticism perspective, but feel free to read this as “Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the god described in the Bible exists”.

1. If God created everything then he necessarily created evil, meaning he HAS chosen evil before.

If he is all-powerful and created the universe from scratch then he could have chosen to create a world where evil was impossible, but he chose not to. That means he knowingly and willingly chose to create a world where evil is possible instead of a world where evil is impossible.

If you want to argue that evil was not invented by God but is rather caused by our own sinful nature because we have free will then that means that God knowingly and willingly chose to make us capable and willing to commit acts of evil instead of capable of committing evil but unwilling to do so like himself.

If it’s possible for him to have free will and not choose evil then creating us to

have free will AND not choose evil

should be possible (especially considering the Bible says we were created in his image), meaning he actively chose not to go that route.

.Not to mention that he chose to create us with a sinful nature instead of the alternative.

Additionally, if there is free will in Heaven but no evil then it means God IS capable of creating a world with both free will AND no evil.

2. According to the Bible, God DID choose to murder. A lot.

Like, a LOT a lot. 

In Noah’s flood alone he killed roughly 20 million people (not counting the billions of non-human animals). 

Then there are all the people he personally killed and the several times he explicitly ordered the Israelites to commit genocide, which brings up his kill count in the Bible to about 25 million people.

And didn’t he invent death to begin with?

You might say that humans were never meant to die, that we only die because of Eve and Adam, but if that’s the case then how come the Devil is immortal? Didn’t e defy God too? 

Why does the Devil get to be immortal and rule one of the underworlds while we’re made mortal and get tortured eternally for committing what amounts to the same crime?

Which, btw, is bs; I never ate any forbidden fruit, nor did you; God’s holding us responsible for someone else’s actions from a time long before we were even born.

How is that fair?

3. If God is at all capable of evil then he cannot be all good, because pure goodness is incapable of evil.

I don’t know if you believe God is all good, but based on your language it sounds like you do.

If you don’t, feel free to disregard this point.

scientificphilosopher:

You have an interesting take here, but it’s probably worth noting that logical fallacies such as ‘guilt by association’ are informal fallacies, and their soundness is therefore a posteriori rather than a priori. Fallacies such as these are not perfectly analogous to mathematical or structural truths, as circumstances can render them sound. It could be the case, for instance, that a god built guilt into our DNA and it’s thus transferable through generations.

I don’t know that every informal fallacy’s soundness is determined a posteriori. If soundness is reached via reason, and I see no reason to add an empirical dimension to determine the soundness of an informal fallacy, then that is also a priori. Even still, however, a perfectly logical being wouldn’t reason fallaciously, let alone base his actions on fallacious reasoning. Even if inherited guilt was built into our DNA, which no empirical research has shown, there’s still a logical issue with making a child pay for their parents sins. So even if I somehow inherit the guilt of my mother’s marital infedility, that doesn’t mean that I should pay the price for her adultery.

Collective guilt, for example, is a thing. I am, for instance, ashamed of my country’s actions. I am American and at the moment and for practically my whole life, I haven’t been proud to be one. I feel guilty being a citizen of a country that murdered millions of Native Americans and stripped them of their lands, allowed slavery, incarcerated Japanese citizens in internment camps, and incarcerates rates Blacks and Latinos disproportionately in comparison to other ethnic groups — aside from the many other human rights infractions this country has committed. That, however, does not mean that I should pay the price for American crimes. While some people may be perfectly content to make me pay on the basis of guilt by association (i.e. well, he’s an American, so his arrest or death is good enough for me!), a perfectly logical being simply should not and would not be content with passing such a sentence. It isn’t logical, just, or moral, but alas, the Judeo-Christian and Muslim gods behave accordingly. Like I said in the post, if a theist or, in your case, an agnostic is reluctant to admit that there are moral or legal failings in the actions of these theistic gods, they must admit that there are clear logical failings in their actions. That poses yet another problem in a long list of problems for theism.

scientificphilosopher:

You have an interesting take here, but it’s probably worth noting that logical fallacies such as ‘guilt by association’ are informal fallacies, and their soundness is therefore a posteriori rather than a priori. Fallacies such as these are not perfectly analogous to mathematical or structural truths, as circumstances can render them sound. It could be the case, for instance, that a god built guilt into our DNA and it’s thus transferable through generations.

I don’t know that every informal fallacy’s soundness is determined a posteriori. If soundness is reached via reason, and I see no reason to add an empirical dimension to determine the soundness of an informal fallacy, then that is also a priori. Even still, however, a perfectly logical being wouldn’t reason fallaciously, let alone base his actions on fallacious reasoning. Even if inherited guilt was built into our DNA, which no empirical research has shown, there’s still a logical issue with making a child pay for their parents sins. So even if I somehow inherit the guilt of my mother’s marital infedility, that doesn’t mean that I should pay the price for her adultery.

Collective guilt, for example, is a thing. I am, for instance, ashamed of my country’s actions. I am American and at the moment and for practically my whole life, I haven’t been proud to be one. I feel guilty being a citizen of a country that murdered millions of Native Americans and stripped them of their lands, allowed slavery, incarcerated Japanese citizens in internment camps, and incarates Blacks and Latinos disproportionately in comparison to other ethnic groups — aside from the many other human rights infractions this country has committed. That, however, does not mean that I should pay the price for American crimes. While some people may be perfectly content to make me pay on the basis of guilt by association (i.e. well, he’s an American, so his arrest or death is good enough for me!), a perfectly logical being simply should not and would not be content with passing such a sentence. It isn’t logical, just, or moral, but alas, the Judeo-Christian and Muslim gods behave accordingly. Like I said in the post, if a theist or, in your case, an agnostic is reluctant to admit that there are moral or legal failings in the actions of these theistic gods, they must admit that there are clear logical failings in their actions. That poses yet another problem in a long list of problems for theism.

I wrote the following in response to a Muslim on a New York Times opinion piece on Facebook. Everyone who discusses the actions of the Judeo-Christian and/or Muslim gods focuses far too much on the moral and legal ramifications of said actions. No one realizes that, per the theist, their god is perfectly logical. As such, the logical dimension of an action attributed to this god has to be captured. With that in mind, I offer the following.

Even if punishing children for the crimes of their parents is either moral or legal, though we haven’t apprehended that as of yet, there’s still the issue that it isn’t logical. Logic is a priori and therefore, logic for humans is logic for the god of monotheism. Just as we can’t make a round square or sided circle, neither can god. Per the philosophically inclined theist, the laws of logic, as an extension of his creative power, are part of him and as such, he can’t violate his own nature. As such, god would be perfectly logical and would thus reason perfectly, which means he wouldn’t commit logical fallacies. Given that, he wouldn’t commit an act that’s based in the fallacy of guilt by association. To punish a child for their parents crimes is exactly that! God would be finding someone guilty do to their association or more specifically, their relation to a sinner.

To my mind, this is the ultimate defeater because it should be clear that the Judeo-Christian and Muslim gods have acted on the basis of fallacious logic. It would make more sense that such actions are the actions of people who wished to attribute said actions to a god, perhaps for sake of justifying their actions and attempting to spare themselves any guilty they might have felt. Clearly, however, a perfectly logical god wouldn’t base any of its actions on fallacious logic. The doctrine of original sin, for instance, is itself based on guilt by association. So even if a Christian fails to see the moral failing in such a doctrine, they would have to concede that there’s certainly a logical failing.

So, my followers, I leave you with this question: can you think of any other actions attributed to god in the Bible or in the Qur’an that are based on fallacious reasoning?