The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion
POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Thursday, December 17, 2015 06:12
VIEWED: 49488
PAGE 22 of 32
Quote:
I think it's possible to live a life that one doesn't have to feel sorry for at its end (and I include arrangements made with human society and its rules in there) that might stand in conflict with God's laws, and I dislike the notion of having to pay for that in hell fires, simply because my idea of good and God's idea of good aren't the same. If that's his idea of free will, he can bite me. That's not loving, that's controlling.
I agree 100%. This is one of my biggest hurdles when trying to accept religion. I just can't buy that somebody who would create us and give us free will would at the same time try to control our thoughts and actions via the threat of eternal fire.
My Grandma says that "hellfire" is a relatively new concept and that to be denied entry into heaven was to exist eternally in nothing.... not exactly darkness, but kind of being alone with your thoughts forever. I imagine it like an eternity of Saturday detention. No talking, no sleeping, nothing to do but entertain yourself with your own thoughts. I'm not exactly sure if this is true or where she got it, but I prefer this over hellfire.
She is Episcopalian. She also says that it is not your acts that get you into heaven, as the Catholics would have us believe (which not coincidentally is her largest gripe with Catholics thinking they can buy their way into heaven), but it is simply acceptance and belief in God and letting him into your heart. She says that having this belief and love of God will lead you to making the right choices. Of course we are human and make mistakes and fall prey to our vices all of the time, but that is what forgiveness is for and if we ask, and really mean it, we shall recieve. When it's explained to me like that I feel a whole lot better about it.
If I ever went back to Christianity I don't think I'd ever follow Catholisism again. I do believe I'd have to do a bit of homework before choosing.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, an eternity of lonesome nothingness doesn't exactly sound appealing, either. I'm fine exchanging eternal oblivion for that, really.
I want to say that, while these issues keep me from ever having a theistic faith, I have deep respect for people who do believe and practice religion. I am happy when people find what gives them peace inside, I know I have found it for myself.
So I wish you luck, whatever your spiritual path may end up being.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks AR.... I wish the same for you and am glad for you that you have found it. Being one who is anything but centered and at peace internally, I know it must be great for anyone to have found it any way they can. I'd like to think that my own personal hells now will only leave me with a much greater appreciation for the balance and peace I hope to one day find. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Citizen,
You quoted me as saying we should weigh "only" the good in considering this. I haven't said that and apologize if I said anything like that. I am trying to point out that if we are going to discuss whether something is "The Root of All Evil", one aspect to consider is whether it has any good aspects or has done anything good for humanity.
Let me address your question about why I am focusing on whether people with religious beliefs (as opposed to atheists) have done any good. I was trying (for once) to stay on topic. Since the topic is about whether the "God delusion" and "religion is the root of all evil", I was focusing on whether people with theistic beliefs had done any good for humanity. If the topic had been, "Is atheism the root of all evil?", I would have focused more on the good people have done in the name of atheism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sorry, you caught a bit of my Annoyance at Finn there, I'm afraid. Shouldn't have been directed at you.
Originally posted by Malachite:
Hey Citizen,
You quoted me as saying we should weigh "only" the good in considering this. I haven't said that and apologize if I said anything like that. I am trying to point out that if we are going to discuss whether something is "The Root of All Evil", one aspect to consider is whether it has any good aspects or has done anything good for humanity.
What I was trying to say is that charity comes not only from religion.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Calhoun: Perhaps it is a bit late in the discussion for this, but if we are going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil, we may need to define what evil is and whether there is such a thing as absolute evil. After we've done that, we may be able to assess whether an atheist like Dawkins really has the philosophical underpinings to claim that something is evil. What I mean is, how does an atheist claim something is evil and therefore wrong? Can an atheist deduce that there are certain absolute evils? How? I thought the morals an atheist could produce was a moral relativism like, "You can have your beliefs and do what you think is good and I'll believe what I want and do what I think is good". If that is the case, how can Dawkins say something is the root of evil when it might actually be defined by someone else as good. So, from his point of view, religion is the root of evil, but from a religious person's point of view, religion is the source of good. How can Dawkins determine who is really right? I think that in order to claim something is truly evil, you have to have some absolutes on what evil is. How does an atheist do this? (I hope I don't sound antagonistic here -- this is something I've really started getting curious about lately).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Citizen,
Thanks for the apology. I certainly agree that non-religious people can be charitible. I think that religious people can sometimes find it hard to acknowledge that non-religious people are capable of doing just as much good as the religious ones and that this is insulting and a shame.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No offence, but I seriously doubt that. I'm sure you knew how they work in principle, but there's no way you could've constructed one yourself given enough material. Nations that have the bomb spent years and millions of dollars until they finally got it right, and nations that don't have it spend years and millions of dollars on trying to develop it. If any kid from high school could build one, every nation and terrorist organisation on the planet would have had a nuclear arsenal ages ago. So that seems like a laughable comment to make.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I knew how to build a nuclear bomb by the end of High School.
But I digress, I realise that that wasn't your point. I have to be honest, I'm not sure anymore if this knowledge/free will thing is supposed to be an analogy or if you're seriously saying that knowledge is the root of all evil. If the former I'll just get to the underlined part of the following:
Quote:This is where the knowledge/free will analogy (if it's an anlogy) breaks down. You say that a basic knowledge of science serves as a springboard for students to "figure out" how to build devices that can be used for evil purposes (bombs, guns, etc.). Yes, but that's because knowledge can be extended, since humans can learn. But this doesn't apply to a limited free will, since if free will is limited, there's no way for a human to extend it, pretty much by definition. Somebody couldn't one day "figure out" how to torture, since his limited free will would inherently bar him from thinking in that direction.
And you don’t need to be taught “how” to build one, any student with a basic knowledge of first year college Physics, Chemistry and Calculus can figure it out.
Quote:If it's not an analogy:
By teaching our children we allow evil to flourish. So we should stop teaching our children?
i) Evil would flourish because the students would choose to use their education to do evil. It comes back to free will.
ii) So uneducated people can't do evil? An uneducated person has never raped, robbed or murdered? Only those that have received a standard education, expand on that in order to use it to build bombs and guns in their basement to be used for evil deeds are the ones engaging in such? So that's, what, 10^-5% of the population? Hardly enough to make evil flourish.
iii) If evil in the world could be eliminated by God limiting free will or by humans abolishing education (a ludicrous thought, education being the source of all evil, but let's go with it), then why is God waiting for humans to abolish education? Unless he wants us to, so that we can spend more time thinking about him and less time thinking about important stuff, and generally significantly decrease our quality of life. Which again contradicts the hypothesis of a benevolent God, one that deserves to be worshipped.
I'd say it's time for you to think of a new analogy/root of evil, this one's broken.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But that was my original point about a hundred posts ago, the one you orignally responded and that started this whole sub-discussion, that he's the root of all evil and therefore not worthy of worship. It was meant to be theological question (provoke people into thinking why they worship God) and a philosophical one as well (is a being that's the cause of one's misery worthy of adulation because of its perceived strengths?).
Originally posted by Causal:Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Basically, since he has the power to have initially prevented humanity's capacity for evil by limiting free will from the get-go, or limiting free will after seeing all the carnage that results from unlimited free will (which he already would have known about in the beginning due to omniscience), it follows that since humanity still has the capacity for evil, and exercises it freely, that this must be part of God's plan, and since God's plan goes against the well-being of humanity, why should humanity worship him? People can believe in him if they wish, but why the worship?
Whoa, and we've just moved from philosophical to theological (which is an area where, like LeadB, I'm hesitant to go).
Quote:It seems like omnibenevolence is assigned to a perfect being, but all evidence suggests that God isn't omnibenevolent. Is he still perfect?
I can say at least this: if God is perfect (and I think most religions take him to be) then above anything else, he is worthy of adulation.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Malachite wrote:
Sunday, May 27, 2007 02:01
Calhoun: Perhaps it is a bit late in the discussion for this, but if we are going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil, we may need to define what evil is and whether there is such a thing as absolute evil. After we've done that, we may be able to assess whether an atheist like Dawkins really has the philosophical underpinings to claim that something is evil. What I mean is, how does an atheist claim something is evil and therefore wrong? Can an atheist deduce that there are certain absolute evils? How? I thought the morals an atheist could produce was a moral relativism like, "You can have your beliefs and do what you think is good and I'll believe what I want and do what I think is good". If that is the case, how can Dawkins say something is the root of evil when it might actually be defined by someone else as good. So, from his point of view, religion is the root of evil, but from a religious person's point of view, religion is the source of good. How can Dawkins determine who is really right? I think that in order to claim something is truly evil, you have to have some absolutes on what evil is. How does an atheist do this? (I hope I don't sound antagonistic here -- this is something I've really started getting curious about lately).
I think its fair to say that someone who straps explosives to their body to blow up civilians in some sort of religious mission or someone who fly jets into buildings to kill as many civilians as possible in the name of allah.. is evil. If you disagree with this opinion then dont bother responding, you'll be dismissed as another religious nutjob..
You dont need any special qualifications to be able to recognise something as evil. To any reasonably intelligent person it should be obvious.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME