well i have found that some people who dont beileve in god think there cant be a god becase (man i cant spell)of all the bad things that happen and some of the people who do belive in god only give him blame for good things notice i said some of the people not all of them im just asking if anyone has noticed this other than me
aha! i knew you were going to say that because it's what my mom said in a family debate.
the foundation for good/evil then depends on your own faith. the Taliban believe, somewhat along the lines of, that Allah told them to murder and you'll be rewarded with 42 virgins in heaven. does this way of telling what is good differ from any other? Jews, the chosen people, do not eat hoofed animals because they are considered holy.
the point is faith is an opinion aswell. you cannot argue that opinions = fact.
When making an argument from contradictory theology (which is what I call it) one assumes that what the Bible says is true in order to prove that it isn't. For example, when I was explaining why God would allow evil, the explanations only make sense if God exists. That's because I was showing that if God exists that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be evil. Your argument was as follows, summarized: "God doesn't exist, because if he did, evil wouldn't." I merely showed how that statement is theologically incorrect. If God existed, that doesn't mean evil wouldn't.
The debate over who Jesus was and what he did is too in-depth to do justice in a short response, but I'd be glad to debate it in a separate thread.
When God manifested himself in human form as Christ, he purposefully limited himself. The only reason he could be killed was because he allowed himself to be.
Here is when I went back to this response.
As I hope I have clarified, the existence of evil is not evidence against God, and certainly does not prove he doesn't exist. In fact, I would argue that evil is evidence of God. How do you, an atheist, define such terms as good and evil? If God doesn't exist, it's merely your opinion. If God doesn't exist, there are no absolute morals, and you can't truly say, 'Child molestation is wrong,' you could only say, 'I don't like child molestation." It would be as abstract as 'Pizza tastes good."
My big brother taught me a few things about debate, so here goes. I'll break it down.
When making an argument from contradictory theology (which is what I call it) one assumes that what the Bible says is true in order to prove that it isn't. For example, when I was explaining why God would allow evil, the explanations only make sense if God exists. That's because I was showing that if God exists that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be evil. Your argument was as follows, summarized: "God doesn't exist, because if he did, evil wouldn't." I merely showed how that statement is theologically incorrect. If God existed, that doesn't mean evil wouldn't.
I think you misinterpreted me. My first post stated that if God existed, evil shouldn't. I allowed myself to be convinced in the fact that it is possible that both God and evil can exist. My second post, the one you're talking about now, was misinterpreted by you to mean something else. Therefore, your explanation is null because its foundation is.
When God manifested himself in human form as Christ, he purposefully limited himself. The only reason he could be killed was because he allowed himself to be.
I can buy that, I guess. But answer one question; why did God want to be killed? I assume having your hands and feet nailed to a post doesn't feel very good.
As I hope I have clarified, the existence of evil is not evidence against God, and certainly does not prove he doesn't exist. In fact, I would argue that evil is evidence of God. How do you, an atheist, define such terms as good and evil? If God doesn't exist, it's merely your opinion. If God doesn't exist, there are no absolute morals, and you can't truly say, 'Child molestation is wrong,' you could only say, 'I don't like child molestation." It would be as abstract as 'Pizza tastes good."
Whoa, whoa whoa there man. I am not an atheist. Let's clear that up now. I am not an atheist. I'm an agnostic. And I don't really like the context you put atheists in though, as if they were lower beings than Christians. And I said I agreed that God and evil can both exist! So that part of your argument is null, just as your first paragraph.And yes, I cannot define good and bad. But what I do know is that bad things happen to people. How can you twist torture into something good? I mean, something good might come of it, but torture is still bad! I don't understand your child molestation analogy. Perhaps something a bit clearer?
Pretty much, the "right" perspective is told by whoever's left standing.
exactly, like how everyone thought back a few hundred years ago that the injustices being committed towards the Native Americans were justified. Why? Because the colonists were only left to say so.
Or the "revolutionaries" in the revolutionary war. If America lost that war they wouldn't be called that, they would be called traitors. They wouldn't be leaders standing on the stage, they would be radicalists hanging from a tree. All perspective.
I wasn't actually claiming that my opinion that God exists means that your opinions don't matter, or something like that, the point I was making was theoretical. If God exists, then there is a foundation for good and evil, and perspective doesn't matter because morality is fact. If he doesn't, then there is no foundation for good and evil, and it really is all perspective, because morality is opinion.
In response to Jessikar:
Hmm. Seems like misunderstanding on both sides. I was responding to you saying that no or at least an insufficient amount of good came of Christ dying since he wasn't resurrected.
God wanted to die to pay for our sins, and to show his love for us. In a love relationship both sides adjust to the other. God adjusted to us by becoming human and going through our pain and death, and then some. That's a summarized reason, at least.
If you're not an atheist, what about your statements on the first page, your third post (first response to me)? You said many things like "Christ was not God" "There is no Heaven" and "God does not exist". Is not an atheist someone who believes God does not exist? It's possible, and I may just be jumping the gun, that you use the title agnostic to try to be more open-minded, but your statements contradict it.
I'm sorry if I made it seem like I viewed atheists as lower than Christians- that wasn't my intention. When I said, "How do you, an atheist, define such terms as good and evil?" I was trying to emphasize that atheism has no ultimate standard for good or evil, as my following statements showed.
Also, at the start of your fourth quote, I was merely making sure we were both good on the evil is not an obstacle for God's existence- it wasn't actually part of my argument that time.
Since you use 'bad' as an adjective for 'things', even though 'things' is emphasized, you must have some sort of definition for 'bad'. Of course I don't believe torture can be good, but that's because I believe in a Sovereign God that defines good and evil. Since you believe that God doesn't exist, or that he only might, then in your worldview good and evil are just abstract, man-made concepts that are a matter of opinion, just as what color you like. Whether something is right or wrong just depends on who you are. Like Lieutenut was saying, many colonists thought that the injustices being committed against the Natives were justified and good/ok, while the Natives obviously thought they were terrible. However, if good and evil are just matters of opinion, saying that one side is more right than the other is like saying 'blue is better than red'. It's just an opinion, and cannot be argued.
You obviously believe that some things are right and some are wrong. I'm not saying atheists don't believe that. I'm saying that according to atheism, right and wrong are just opinions. Statements like "Giving to the needy is good" and "Giving to the needy is evil" would both just be opinions, since there's no defining power, just a clash of opinions. It's the same way with the child molestation illustration. Saying "Child molestation is wrong" would be just as true as "Child molestation is right" because they would both be opinions with no truth value. I hope that clarifies.
I'm saying that according to atheism, right and wrong are just opinions.
~ strong agnostic here -.-
the majority of a culture have an opinion on one side. a low stereotype that defines what good is. generally i see people trying to please everyone in laws. you don't see murderers getting hi-fives from a mayor do you?
killing human = bad because death = pain/grievances and me no likey that = murder illegal
Graham, that isn't a particularly strong example, not when you use the word 'sinner'. Sin is a biblical concept which can only be defined by the Bible.
I'll try to make my point on relativism clearer. To do so, I will make two theoretical universes.
Universe A: In Universe A God exists. God defines good and evil, because he is the Creator, the only one with the ability to. Some people don't believe in him and have their own opinions about what's right and wrong, but in the end that's just their opinion, and God defines what's right and wrong, so their opinion doesn't matter, and doesn't make it right. Some people claim that right and wrong is just an opinion that is different for everybody depending on their perspective. However, these people are wrong, because God exists, and only he can decide what's right and wrong.
Overview for Universe A: Deity: God exists Absolute Morality: God defines what is right and what is wrong. Things like rape, murder, child molestation, torture, and abuse are wrong. Opinions: Peoples opinions on right and wrong do no change what is right and wrong, not even for themselves.
Universe B: In Universe B God does not exist. People decide what is right and wrong for themselves. Since there is no higher power, it is only their individual opinions that matter. Some people believe that God exists and that God defines what is right and wrong. However, these people are wrong, because God does not exist, right and wrong are just abstract things defined for each person by each person.
Overview of Universe B: Deity: God does not exist Absolute Morality: There is no absolute morality. Rape, murder, child molestation, torture, and abuse are neither right nor wrong. Opinions: Peoples opinions on right and wrong define what's they think is right or wrong, but those opinions cannot be argued or imposed on others.
See, we live in one of the two universes. If we live in Universe A, then perspective doesn't matter. If we live in Universe B, then perspective is the only thing that matters. Regardless of what you believe, we factually live in either A or B.
ok ok and ok i amy not want to make any replys hear becase i might make sertan people mad but i need the ap points so im just going this god thing can be dificalt for people thats why i dot folo with any of this stuf this is what i think (dont be hateing me for this im not telling nobody to do anything so just beleave what you want thats how i go) is there rilly a true good becase all over the world people beleave in diferent things like some beleave in more than one god some go by one god so i dont deal with any of this so you could cosider me to not to beleave in no god at all (i dont care just say whut you want just dont bug me about it i understand whut you people beleave in whitch is good because you look up to something).so for this queston you have i have no anser because why have an anser for somthing you dont beleave.(when i say i dont beleave in god it also i dont beleave in satin and other super evil god or anything in god gidelines so no i dont beleave in god or satin)
Hmm. Seems like misunderstanding on both sides. I was responding to you saying that no or at least an insufficient amount of good came of Christ dying since he wasn't resurrected.
God wanted to die to pay for our sins, and to show his love for us. In a love relationship both sides adjust to the other. God adjusted to us by becoming human and going through our pain and death, and then some. That's a summarized reason, at least.
If you're not an atheist, what about your statements on the first page, your third post (first response to me)? You said many things like "Christ was not God" "There is no Heaven" and "God does not exist". Is not an atheist someone who believes God does not exist? It's possible, and I may just be jumping the gun, that you use the title agnostic to try to be more open-minded, but your statements contradict it.
I'm sorry if I made it seem like I viewed atheists as lower than Christians- that wasn't my intention. When I said, "How do you, an atheist, define such terms as good and evil?" I was trying to emphasize that atheism has no ultimate standard for good or evil, as my following statements showed.
Also, at the start of your fourth quote, I was merely making sure we were both good on the evil is not an obstacle for God's existence- it wasn't actually part of my argument that time.
Since you use 'bad' as an adjective for 'things', even though 'things' is emphasized, you must have some sort of definition for 'bad'. Of course I don't believe torture can be good, but that's because I believe in a Sovereign God that defines good and evil. Since you believe that God doesn't exist, or that he only might, then in your worldview good and evil are just abstract, man-made concepts that are a matter of opinion, just as what color you like. Whether something is right or wrong just depends on who you are. Like Lieutenut was saying, many colonists thought that the injustices being committed against the Natives were justified and good/ok, while the Natives obviously thought they were terrible. However, if good and evil are just matters of opinion, saying that one side is more right than the other is like saying 'blue is better than red'. It's just an opinion, and cannot be argued.
You obviously believe that some things are right and some are wrong. I'm not saying atheists don't believe that. I'm saying that according to atheism, right and wrong are just opinions. Statements like "Giving to the needy is good" and "Giving to the needy is evil" would both just be opinions, since there's no defining power, just a clash of opinions. It's the same way with the child molestation illustration. Saying "Child molestation is wrong" would be just as true as "Child molestation is right" because they would both be opinions with no truth value. I hope that clarifies.
All right. Break it down, and respond.
God wanted to die to pay for our sins, and to show his love for us. In a love relationship both sides adjust to the other. God adjusted to us by becoming human and going through our pain and death, and then some. That's a summarized reason, at least.
Then why cannot we adjust to being God, in the view you take? Why cannot we become omnipotent? Well, we can't. Even according to your Bible, God existed throughout time. Therefore, a loving relationship is impossible, thus his actions are nulled.
If you're not an atheist, what about your statements on the first page, your third post (first response to me)? You said many things like "Christ was not God" "There is no Heaven" and "God does not exist". Is not an atheist someone who believes God does not exist? It's possible, and I may just be jumping the gun, that you use the title agnostic to try to be more open-minded, but your statements contradict it.
Do you know what an agnostic is? I believe in something omnipotent, but certainly not the Christian God. I find that particular religion, and all other current religions, to be rather foolish. And I also find the Big Bang theory to be foolish. I believe in some sort of being watching over us that created the first living things, but then I also believe that evolution took us the rest of the way. That is an agnostic. Sort of like in the middle.
I'm sorry if I made it seem like I viewed atheists as lower than Christians- that wasn't my intention. When I said, "How do you, an atheist, define such terms as good and evil?" I was trying to emphasize that atheism has no ultimate standard for good or evil, as my following statements showed.
Alright, I can buy that. Yes, there is no standard for good or evil. Like Jon said, what's right is a perspective. Perspective is told by whoever's left standing. For example, the Spanish Inquisition. Christians would say they were ridding the world of heretics. Non-Christians would say they were brutally attacked. And the bit where I thought you implied atheists were lower than Christians was how you said "atheist" instead of "human". See my point now?
Since you use 'bad' as an adjective for 'things', even though 'things' is emphasized, you must have some sort of definition for 'bad'. Of course I don't believe torture can be good, but that's because I believe in a Sovereign God that defines good and evil. Since you believe that God doesn't exist, or that he only might, then in your worldview good and evil are just abstract, man-made concepts that are a matter of opinion, just as what color you like. Whether something is right or wrong just depends on who you are. Like Lieutenut was saying, many colonists thought that the injustices being committed against the Natives were justified and good/ok, while the Natives obviously thought they were terrible. However, if good and evil are just matters of opinion, saying that one side is more right than the other is like saying 'blue is better than red'. It's just an opinion, and cannot be argued.
Let me put it this way. God knows full well that humans hate pain. That's why, if they aren't good in their life, instead of going to heaven, they'll burn in hell for all eternity. Therefore, God has some sort of perspective on pain, obviously, or at least knows that his underlings hate it. And you are partially correct. I see good and evil themselves as a shifting thing, but that doesn't mean I myself, don't draw the line between good and evil. For example, if my big brother took the computer, I would say he was being mean, and he would say it was his turn. Everyone has their own views, no matter who philosophical they are. Debating is fun!
