Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evil is evidence for the existence of God

Tradesecret
Posts: 1,552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2019 7:27:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
the atheist likes to suggest the following:

An all powerful God could eliminate evil
An all good God would want to eliminate evil.
Evil exists
therefore God probably does not exist.

But the question is - what is evil?

Evil is something but it is not some thing. It is not a thing so God did not need to make it.
In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.

So what is evil?

Evil is the absence of good. It is the hole in the proverbial donut. It is a shadow - it is coldness - that exists because of a lack of heat.

Evil is therefore not defined by what it is - but by what it is not.

Evil is therefore a departure from a perfect standard of good.
There must be a perfect standard of good to measure good and evil.
Good is closer to the benchmark and evil is further away from it.

Therefore evil is a problem for the atheist not for the theist.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.
If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil.
Therefore if you recognise evil - this is evidence for God, Not against God.

How would you argue against this?
Willows
Posts: 11,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2019 8:44:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Tradesecret wrote:
the atheist likes to suggest the following:

An all powerful God could eliminate evil
An all good God would want to eliminate evil.
Evil exists
therefore God probably does not exist.

But the question is - what is evil?

Evil is something but it is not some thing. It is not a thing so God did not need to make it.
In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.

So what is evil?

Evil is the absence of good. It is the hole in the proverbial donut. It is a shadow - it is coldness - that exists because of a lack of heat.

Evil is therefore not defined by what it is - but by what it is not.

Evil is therefore a departure from a perfect standard of good.
There must be a perfect standard of good to measure good and evil.
Good is closer to the benchmark and evil is further away from it.

Therefore evil is a problem for the atheist not for the theist.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.
If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil.
Therefore if you recognise evil - this is evidence for God, Not against God.

How would you argue against this?

If anyone ever thinks that it is necessary to have a God in order to have morals, It says very little indeed as to the substance and character of that person.
ethang5
Posts: 19,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2019 8:56:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Willows wrote:
Tradesecret wrote:
the atheist likes to suggest the following:

An all powerful God could eliminate evil
An all good God would want to eliminate evil.
Evil exists
therefore God probably does not exist.

But the question is - what is evil?

Evil is something but it is not some thing. It is not a thing so God did not need to make it.
In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.

So what is evil?

Evil is the absence of good. It is the hole in the proverbial donut. It is a shadow - it is coldness - that exists because of a lack of heat.

Evil is therefore not defined by what it is - but by what it is not.

Evil is therefore a departure from a perfect standard of good.
There must be a perfect standard of good to measure good and evil.
Good is closer to the benchmark and evil is further away from it.

Therefore evil is a problem for the atheist not for the theist.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.
If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil.
Therefore if you recognise evil - this is evidence for God, Not against God.

How would you argue against this?

If anyone ever thinks that it is necessary to have a God in order to have morals, . . . .

That is not what he said. He did NOT say you could not have morals without God, He said If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.

It says very little indeed as to the substance and character of that person.

And your error of comprehension says very little indeed as to the substance and character of your IQ.

Don't worry, There is not a soul on DDO who thinks you can answer this question, And even fewer who think you will try to.
Willows
Posts: 11,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2019 9:32:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
ethang5 wrote:
Willows wrote:
Tradesecret wrote:
the atheist likes to suggest the following:

An all powerful God could eliminate evil
An all good God would want to eliminate evil.
Evil exists
therefore God probably does not exist.

But the question is - what is evil?

Evil is something but it is not some thing. It is not a thing so God did not need to make it.
In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.

So what is evil?

Evil is the absence of good. It is the hole in the proverbial donut. It is a shadow - it is coldness - that exists because of a lack of heat.

Evil is therefore not defined by what it is - but by what it is not.

Evil is therefore a departure from a perfect standard of good.
There must be a perfect standard of good to measure good and evil.
Good is closer to the benchmark and evil is further away from it.

Therefore evil is a problem for the atheist not for the theist.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.
If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil.
Therefore if you recognise evil - this is evidence for God, Not against God.

How would you argue against this?

If anyone ever thinks that it is necessary to have a God in order to have morals, . . . .

That is not what he said. He did NOT say you could not have morals without God, He said If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.

And I said "If anyone ever thinks that it is necessary to have a God in order to have morals, It says very little indeed as to the substance and character of that person. "

This is a forum, Not an inquisition.
WhereDoWeBegin
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2019 10:25:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Willows wrote:

And I said "If anyone ever thinks that it is necessary to have a God in order to have morals, It says very little indeed as to the substance and character of that person. "

Of course you did. "Cause you"re so very bad at rational argument, Ad hominem is all you"ve got.
- WhereDoWeBegin: shining the bright light of truth into the eyes of those who refuse to see it.
ethang5
Posts: 19,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2019 10:30:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Willows wrote:
ethang5 wrote:
Willows wrote:
Tradesecret wrote:

the atheist likes to suggest the following:

An all powerful God could eliminate evil
An all good God would want to eliminate evil.
Evil exists
therefore God probably does not exist.

But the question is - what is evil?

Evil is something but it is not some thing. It is not a thing so God did not need to make it.
In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.

So what is evil?

Evil is the absence of good. It is the hole in the proverbial donut. It is a shadow - it is coldness - that exists because of a lack of heat.

Evil is therefore not defined by what it is - but by what it is not.

Evil is therefore a departure from a perfect standard of good.
There must be a perfect standard of good to measure good and evil.
Good is closer to the benchmark and evil is further away from it.

Therefore evil is a problem for the atheist not for the theist.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.
If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil.
Therefore if you recognise evil - this is evidence for God, Not against God.

How would you argue against this?

If anyone ever thinks that it is necessary to have a God in order to have morals, . . . .

That is not what he said. He did NOT say you could not have morals without God, He said If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.

And I said "If anyone ever thinks that it is necessary to have a God in order to have morals, It says very little indeed as to the substance and character of that person. "

But why are you bringing up what no one here has said? And so what? Aren't you the one always accusing others of not addressing the thread topic?

This is a forum, Not an inquisition.

This is debate, And Debate uses logic.

If TS says you cannot have a moral standard without God, And you respond that it is not necessary to have a God in order to have morals, So what? You could have said it is not necessary to have seeds to have juice, And that would have been equally off topic.

Without God, You have no standard. Without a standard, You cannot call anything evil. The problem of evil is the atheist's.

Do you know what professional philosophers call morality with no standard?

Opinion.
Harikrish
Posts: 29,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2019 4:42:11 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
ethang5 wrote:
Willows wrote:
ethang5 wrote:
Willows wrote:
Tradesecret wrote:

the atheist likes to suggest the following:

An all powerful God could eliminate evil
An all good God would want to eliminate evil.
Evil exists
therefore God probably does not exist.

But the question is - what is evil?

Evil is something but it is not some thing. It is not a thing so God did not need to make it.
In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.

So what is evil?

Evil is the absence of good. It is the hole in the proverbial donut. It is a shadow - it is coldness - that exists because of a lack of heat.

Evil is therefore not defined by what it is - but by what it is not.

Evil is therefore a departure from a perfect standard of good.
There must be a perfect standard of good to measure good and evil.
Good is closer to the benchmark and evil is further away from it.

Therefore evil is a problem for the atheist not for the theist.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.
If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil.
Therefore if you recognise evil - this is evidence for God, Not against God.

How would you argue against this?

If anyone ever thinks that it is necessary to have a God in order to have morals, . . . .

That is not what he said. He did NOT say you could not have morals without God, He said If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.

And I said "If anyone ever thinks that it is necessary to have a God in order to have morals, It says very little indeed as to the substance and character of that person. "

But why are you bringing up what no one here has said? And so what? Aren't you the one always accusing others of not addressing the thread topic?

This is a forum, Not an inquisition.

This is debate, And Debate uses logic.

If TS says you cannot have a moral standard without God, And you respond that it is not necessary to have a God in order to have morals, So what? You could have said it is not necessary to have seeds to have juice, And that would have been equally off topic.

Without God, You have no standard. Without a standard, You cannot call anything evil. The problem of evil is the atheist's.

Do you know what professional philosophers call morality with no standard?

Opinion.

God has no moral standards.

The God of the bible is a bumbling genocidal lunatic according to scriptures.
https://www. Debate. Org/forums/religion/topic/113253/1/#

Genesis 6:6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, And his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created"and with them the animals, The birds and the creatures that move along the ground"for I regret that I have made them. "

The reason God gave for his decision to destroy all life was the wickedness he saw.

Genesis 6:5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, And that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

But that is not the whole truth.
Adam had 3 sons. Cain, Abel and Seth. Cain murdered Abel. But God did not put Cain to death.
After Cain killed his brother Abel, God gave the following judgment to Cain: "And now you are cursed from the ground, Which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, It shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth" (Genesis 4:11-12). It would seem to many that Cain received a lesser punishment than he deserved for murder. Why wasn"t Cain given capital punishment?

THE LINE OF CAIN
Cain > Enoch > Irad > Mehujael > Methushael > Lamech

It was Lamech who introduced polygamy by having two wives and like Cain committed murdered and continued the ungodly line of Cain (grandpappy).

Unlike Cain"s descendants, Seth"s prove faithful to God. From Seth come the patriarchs, The nation of Israel, And Noah.

We know from scriptures only the descendants of Cain were wicked whereas the descendants of Seth were faithful to God.
So God was lying when he declared the entire human race was wicked. But by sparing Cain he allowed the descendants of Cain to spread their wickedness for which only God should have been held responsible. Instead he chose to destroy the world.
Only a bumbling genocidal lunatic would be so irresponsible in his decision making.

Harikrish biblical scholar and spiritual leader.
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2019 9:01:37 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
God has no moral standards.

This is not a question about whether God having moral standards. It is a topic about whether evil exists or not. If people can recognise that evil exists then it is evidence for the existence of God. If there is no God then there is no evil. It is quite simple really, Even for those who are intellectually challenged. +
Harikrish
Posts: 29,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2019 10:20:05 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:
God has no moral standards.

This is not a question about whether God having moral standards. It is a topic about whether evil exists or not. If people can recognise that evil exists then it is evidence for the existence of God. If there is no God then there is no evil. It is quite simple really, Even for those who are intellectually challenged. +

The link will show you scriptural verses that prove God was a genocidal lunatic. It goes beyond evidence for the existence of God of whether God has moral standards.
You have to use the link because the site won't let me repost the list of bible verses.
Post #24
https://www. Debate. Org/forums/religion/topic/113253/1/#
Willows
Posts: 11,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2019 7:23:43 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
ethang5 wrote:
Willows wrote:
ethang5 wrote:
Willows wrote:
Tradesecret wrote:

the atheist likes to suggest the following:

An all powerful God could eliminate evil
An all good God would want to eliminate evil.
Evil exists
therefore God probably does not exist.

But the question is - what is evil?

Evil is something but it is not some thing. It is not a thing so God did not need to make it.
In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.

So what is evil?

Evil is the absence of good. It is the hole in the proverbial donut. It is a shadow - it is coldness - that exists because of a lack of heat.

Evil is therefore not defined by what it is - but by what it is not.

Evil is therefore a departure from a perfect standard of good.
There must be a perfect standard of good to measure good and evil.
Good is closer to the benchmark and evil is further away from it.

Therefore evil is a problem for the atheist not for the theist.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.
If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil.
Therefore if you recognise evil - this is evidence for God, Not against God.

How would you argue against this?

If anyone ever thinks that it is necessary to have a God in order to have morals, . . . .

That is not what he said. He did NOT say you could not have morals without God, He said If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.

And I said "If anyone ever thinks that it is necessary to have a God in order to have morals, It says very little indeed as to the substance and character of that person. "

But why are you bringing up what no one here has said? And so what? Aren't you the one always accusing others of not addressing the thread topic?

This is a forum, Not an inquisition.

This is debate, And Debate uses logic.

If TS says you cannot have a moral standard without God, And you respond that it is not necessary to have a God in order to have morals, So what? You could have said it is not necessary to have seeds to have juice, And that would have been equally off topic.

Without God, You have no standard. Without a standard, You cannot call anything evil. The problem of evil is the atheist's.

Do you know what professional philosophers call morality with no standard?

Opinion.

Opinions are like r soles. Everyone has one.

And, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, I mean like, I am starting to choke on my Corona now; "This is debate, And Debate uses logic"

That has got to me the most ridiculous double whammy I have heard in an awfully long time. Like, I mean, Debate?
And, Logic?
Since when has logic ever had anything to do with the existence of God?

Geeziz, Someone get me another Corona, I just sprayed that last one out after laughing so much.
Willows
Posts: 11,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2019 7:28:15 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
WhereDoWeBegin wrote:
Willows wrote:

And I said "If anyone ever thinks that it is necessary to have a God in order to have morals, It says very little indeed as to the substance and character of that person. "

Of course you did. "Cause you"re so very bad at rational argument, Ad hominem is all you"ve got.

Well, Perhaps you could explain the rationality behind the stupidly absurd argument that "evil is evidence for the existence of God".

And, Who is the so-called Ad Hominem attack aimed at?
God?
ethang5
Posts: 19,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2019 7:40:12 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Willows wrote:
Tradesecret wrote:

the atheist likes to suggest the following:

An all powerful God could eliminate evil
An all good God would want to eliminate evil.
Evil exists
therefore God probably does not exist.

But the question is - what is evil?

Evil is something but it is not some thing. It is not a thing so God did not need to make it.
In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.

So what is evil?

Evil is the absence of good. It is the hole in the proverbial donut. It is a shadow - it is coldness - that exists because of a lack of heat.

Evil is therefore not defined by what it is - but by what it is not.

Evil is therefore a departure from a perfect standard of good.
There must be a perfect standard of good to measure good and evil.
Good is closer to the benchmark and evil is further away from it.

Therefore evil is a problem for the atheist not for the theist.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.
If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil.
Therefore if you recognise evil - this is evidence for God, Not against God.

How would you argue against this?

If anyone ever thinks that it is necessary to have a God in order to have morals, . . . .

That is not what he said. He did NOT say you could not have morals without God, He said If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.

And I said "If anyone ever thinks that it is necessary to have a God in order to have morals, It says very little indeed as to the substance and character of that person. "

But why are you bringing up what no one here has said? And so what? Aren't you the one always accusing others of not addressing the thread topic?

This is a forum, Not an inquisition.

This is debate, And Debate uses logic.

If TS says you cannot have a moral standard without God, And you respond that it is not necessary to have a God in order to have morals, So what? You could have said it is not necessary to have seeds to have juice, And that would have been equally off topic.

Without God, You have no standard. Without a standard, You cannot call anything evil. The problem of evil is the atheist's.

Do you know what professional philosophers call morality with no standard?

Opinion.

Opinions are like r soles. Everyone has one.

Logic obviously isn't. You don't have logic.

And, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, I mean like, I am starting to choke on my Corona now; "This is debate, And Debate uses logic"

Yes. Now you have again run away from the thread topic, You're about to rant about how bad religion is instead of posting a cogent argument.

That has got to me the most ridiculous double whammy I have heard in an awfully long time. Like, I mean, Debate?
And, Logic?
Since when has logic ever had anything to do with the existence of God?

The thread is not about the existence of God. And if religion had no logic, You would be able to show how, Instead of simply telling us that you don't think it does. You don't know how to debate. You haven't a clue.

Geeziz, Someone get me another Corona, I just sprayed that last one out after laughing so much.

And you close with you claiming you're laughing, As vacuous are Hindu hari. As if your credulity is a logical argument. Willows, You are as empty as a balloon.

The problem of evil is still yours. Arguments have legs. You may run from them, But they follow you. I don't think you even understand the thread topic.

Just go back to posting stupidity, Troll. No one needs to waste time reading you repeat for the upteenth time that you're laughing. The only person who thinks that substitutes for logic is you.
WhereDoWeBegin
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2019 7:58:33 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Willows wrote:
Perhaps you could explain the rationality behind. . . "evil is evidence for the existence of God".

Why are you asking me? It was the OP's assertion. Who, Just BTB, Did an excellent job of setting out the rational argument in the initial post. You don't get to dodge the question just by calling it "absurd".

And, Who is the so-called Ad Hominem attack aimed at?

It was your ad hominem, And you don't know who you were aiming it at? Why am I not surprised?
- WhereDoWeBegin: shining the bright light of truth into the eyes of those who refuse to see it.
WhereDoWeBegin
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2019 8:00:58 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Willows wrote:

Opinions are like r soles. Everyone has one.

Actually, Most people have two.
- WhereDoWeBegin: shining the bright light of truth into the eyes of those who refuse to see it.
Willows
Posts: 11,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2019 8:46:55 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
WhereDoWeBegin wrote:
Willows wrote:

Opinions are like r soles. Everyone has one.

Actually, Most people have two.

Well, You can speak for yourself but last time I bent over in front of the mirror and spread my butt cheeks apart I noticed only one r sole. Let me check again, (long pause), Nope, Still only one.

I am not discounting the possibility that there may actually be some (as opposed to most) people who have two and of course, Who am I to disprove such a phenomenon without evidence.

I will give you some credit though that the possibility of disproving that anyone has two would be more feasible than disproving God, Don't you think?

I could hire teams of specialists investigators who would methodically comb the entire planet and check out everyone's anal region for the possibility of two orifices and have each finding certified by independent auditors.

But then, What about the hundreds of thousands of subsequent births where there is the possibility that some babies are born with two anuses?

Yep, It would be nigh impossible to disprove really.

So, I will have to concede this one to you, There is a possibility.

By the way, How many do you have?
WhereDoWeBegin
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2019 8:54:18 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Willows wrote:
I am not discounting the possibility that there may actually be some (as opposed to most) people who have two

SOLE: 1. The undersurface of a person's foot.

Two feet, Two soles. Why do you have your feet up your bum? I'm not surprised, Mind you. Just curious.
- WhereDoWeBegin: shining the bright light of truth into the eyes of those who refuse to see it.
Willows
Posts: 11,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2019 8:55:36 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
WhereDoWeBegin wrote:
Willows wrote:
Perhaps you could explain the rationality behind. . . "evil is evidence for the existence of God".

Why are you asking me? It was the OP's assertion. Who, Just BTB, Did an excellent job of setting out the rational argument in the initial post. You don't get to dodge the question just by calling it "absurd".

And, Who is the so-called Ad Hominem attack aimed at?

It was your ad hominem, And you don't know who you were aiming it at? Why am I not surprised?

Come on, If you really want to get into cliched Latin terminology, How about this blatantly cringe-worthy non sequitur, "If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality. "
No argument and totally pathetic, To say the least.

I'm onto the coffee now, So please, Someone get me another since I just sprayed the last one all over the coffee table from laughing so much.
WhereDoWeBegin
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2019 10:13:18 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Willows wrote:
If you really want to get into cliched Latin terminology

*Chortle* "cliched Latin terminology". *snort*

See rational discussion requires a rational mind. Which is why you should leave it to the professionals.
- WhereDoWeBegin: shining the bright light of truth into the eyes of those who refuse to see it.
Willows
Posts: 11,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2019 10:30:12 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
WhereDoWeBegin wrote:
Willows wrote:
If you really want to get into cliched Latin terminology

*Chortle* "cliched Latin terminology". *snort*

See rational discussion requires a rational mind. Which is why you should leave it to the professionals.

Do you agree with my post in that there is a fundamental error in the OP, Therefore making the conclusion null and void?
WhereDoWeBegin
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2019 2:20:27 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Willows wrote:

Do you agree with my post

What post? All you have done is scoff and whine and make random incredulous noises, Almost as if you think your personal incredulity is an argument. What you haven"t done is demonstrate any "fundamental error" in anything.
- WhereDoWeBegin: shining the bright light of truth into the eyes of those who refuse to see it.
Leaning
Posts: 2,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2019 2:29:17 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:
How would you argue against this?

I would say
By denying the existence of actual good and evil, But recognizing that humans and likely other persons that might exist still have a 'perception of good and evil. By that I mean since good and evil 'appear to exist, And we act as though it does, Function wise it's the same as if it did.

Other people might say
There are some atheists who believe in objective good and evil without a deity. I think they simply use other concepts or facts of life as their measuring sticks.

Incoherent Extras
I'm not sure how I would define evil. Mostly I would just say it's things that are bad, But that type of definition could use a lot of work.

When I say 'appear to exist, I'm implying it's an illusion, But I don't think I mean to say it doesn't exist, Illusions do exist after all and we can understand them. Hmm, I'm not quite sure what I am going for there, But something. I think I used a similar type of thinking in my debate Re-upload: Free Will
ethang5
Posts: 19,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2019 6:43:05 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:

How would you argue against this?

I would say
By denying the existence of actual good and evil, But recognizing that humans and likely other persons that might exist still have a 'perception of good and evil. By that I mean since good and evil 'appear to exist, And we act as though it does, Function wise it's the same as if it did.

Other people might say
There are some atheists who believe in objective good and evil without a deity. I think they simply use other concepts or facts of life as their measuring sticks.

Incoherent Extras
I'm not sure how I would define evil. Mostly I would just say it's things that are bad, But that type of definition could use a lot of work.

When I say 'appear to exist, I'm implying it's an illusion, But I don't think I mean to say it doesn't exist, Illusions do exist after all and we can understand them. Hmm, I'm not quite sure what I am going for there, But something. I think I used a similar type of thinking in my debate Re-upload: Free Will

At least you're making a coherent stab at it. But your explanation still leaves evil the responsibility of atheists. If good and evil are illusions, Then the problem of evil (POE) is nonsense.

Question: If evil is an illusion, What is it causing the illusion? I mean, What are we seeing that we are thinking of as evil?
Leaning
Posts: 2,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2019 7:29:41 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Myself I wouldn't be able to answer why the existence of evil and God is a problem, Because it isn't for me. It's possible it was in the past and I have forgotten it, But I don't believe so. My answer to the problem of evil is not so much an answer as an avoision of it. I think that 'if God did exist, That people make the mistake far too often of anthropomorphizing him completely into a human who simply happens to have various powers, More or less depending on who is describing him. I have the same issue with how people describe the afterlife in depth, I don't feel they are credible source of it. As well as for writings and collections of what people have claimed in the past being too vast. Also do not believe in the afterlife.

Hmm, Still not sure what the best way to describe evil is, So my explanation for the illusion will be a bit lacking. . . . People have different values. No that's not quite it.

Perhaps it's a problem of perspective, Language, And habit? . .

No, Just perspective and habit. Let's say that evolution was true. 'I think that if some type of social dinosaur back in that far off era had managed to survive and thrive instead of humans, There would be some similarities between what they have for morality and what we humans have. The reason I make this argument is because I think that morality is partially in our DNA. In the sense that we are prone to certain behaviors, And enjoying certain behaviors. For example I consider empathy to be partially based on our genetics. A trait that not all humans are born with (Psychopaths). Since this trait has an enormous impact on how we go about life, We build further onto nature with nurture. Our civilizations encourage us to learn how to respect others, Act in ways beneficial to them.

So why would this be an illusion? . . . I'm not quite sure. But I'll go with it being a bit of an arbitrary event. By that I mean that if an intelligent psychopathic species existed, I can easily imagine their idea of good being whatever is beneficial specifically to them, What is bad, Is any action that harms them, Even if it helps another.

Both of these are systems of good and evil. I think I'll go with that being why I view it as an illusion.
ethang5
Posts: 19,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2019 7:03:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
The poster asked if the rape of a child was ever subjectively moral.

You dodge by saying anything done in the name of God was immoral. That was off topic. You could have said it AND answered the question at hand. You instead dodged.

Throwing a hissy-fit now will not sway me or make me let you off the hook. Your entire hissy-fit is itself just another dodge because you cannot or will not answer the question.

Your position is intellectually bankrupt.

"Herr Villows!
You must answer ze qvestion!
I haff commanded you, Jah?
I said, Answer ze qvestion, Do you hear me now?
I order you right now:

Waaaah, Waaaah, Waaaah! "

I've been the one telling you for years that you dodge questions. You have always denied that and said you do answer questions.

Now you're angry enough to tell the truth and you admit you do not answer questions.

If you won't answer questions put to you about your arguments, Why are you here? I called you a troll. That is exactly how a troll behaves. Bully didn't answer questions, Hari doesn't answer questions. And you don't either. Since one cannot debate without asking AND answering questions, You cannot be here for debate. You only want to preach.

Now you pretend I'm trying to force you to answer questions. I am the one person on the board most sure that you cannot and will not answer questions. I'm not trying to force you, I'm shaming you. And I can tell from your reaction that you are ashamed.

You are a troll. And you already know Ethan loves him a troll. I will stay on you for as long as you're a troll, And since you are a troll due to your messed up brain chemistry, I'm betting I will be all over you forever.

Do you feel warm and tingly? I do.
Willows
Posts: 11,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2019 8:14:41 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
ethang5 wrote:
The poster asked if the rape of a child was ever subjectively moral.

You dodge by saying anything done in the name of God was immoral. That was off topic. You could have said it AND answered the question at hand. You instead dodged.

Throwing a hissy-fit now will not sway me or make me let you off the hook. Your entire hissy-fit is itself just another dodge because you cannot or will not answer the question.

Your position is intellectually bankrupt.

"Herr Villows!
You must answer ze qvestion!
I haff commanded you, Jah?
I said, Answer ze qvestion, Do you hear me now?
I order you right now:

Waaaah, Waaaah, Waaaah! "

I've been the one telling you for years that you dodge questions. You have always denied that and said you do answer questions.

Now you're angry enough to tell the truth and you admit you do not answer questions.

If you won't answer questions put to you about your arguments, Why are you here? I called you a troll. That is exactly how a troll behaves. Bully didn't answer questions, Hari doesn't answer questions. And you don't either. Since one cannot debate without asking AND answering questions, You cannot be here for debate. You only want to preach.
s
Now you pretend I'm trying to force you to answer questions. I am the one person on the board most sure that you cannot and will not answer questions. I'm not trying to force you, I'm shaming you. And I can tell from your reaction that you are ashamed.

You are a troll. And you already know Ethan loves him a troll. I will stay on you for as long as you're a troll, And since you are a troll due to your messed up brain chemistry, I'm betting I will be all over you forever.

Do you feel warm and tingly? I do.

I always feel warm and tingly since I am not burdened with the fear guilt that God followers are constantly afflicted with.

In any case, I would not have a friggin clue as to what the question was anyway.

So, I will just make up a question and answer it, Then you can tell me whether or not the answer fits in with your predetermined, Narrow, Deluded views.

"Willows, I know that normal people like you have higher IQs but what I really want to know is, What's it like to be able to sleep at night? "

"Well, Ethong, Just the other night I had this dream that involved me and two women and. . . . . . "
ethang5
Posts: 19,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2019 2:06:04 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Willows wrote:
ethang5 wrote:

The poster asked if the rape of a child was ever subjectively moral.

You dodge by saying anything done in the name of God was immoral. That was off topic. You could have said it AND answered the question at hand. You instead dodged.

Throwing a hissy-fit now will not sway me or make me let you off the hook. Your entire hissy-fit is itself just another dodge because you cannot or will not answer the question.

Your position is intellectually bankrupt.

"Herr Villows!
You must answer ze qvestion!
I haff commanded you, Jah?
I said, Answer ze qvestion, Do you hear me now?
I order you right now:

Waaaah, Waaaah, Waaaah! "

I've been the one telling you for years that you dodge questions. You have always denied that and said you do answer questions.

Now you're angry enough to tell the truth and you admit you do not answer questions.

If you won't answer questions put to you about your arguments, Why are you here? I called you a troll. That is exactly how a troll behaves. Bully didn't answer questions, Hari doesn't answer questions. And you don't either. Since one cannot debate without asking AND answering questions, You cannot be here for debate. You only want to preach.
s
Now you pretend I'm trying to force you to answer questions. I am the one person on the board most sure that you cannot and will not answer questions. I'm not trying to force you, I'm shaming you. And I can tell from your reaction that you are ashamed.

You are a troll. And you already know Ethan loves him a troll. I will stay on you for as long as you're a troll, And since you are a troll due to your messed up brain chemistry, I'm betting I will be all over you forever.

Do you feel warm and tingly? I do.

I always feel warm and tingly since I am not burdened with the fear guilt that God followers are constantly afflicted with.

Must be why all those God followers are on atheist boards spamming them. The only thing we're afflicted with are loonies like you obsessed with too much religion and too little sense.

In any case, I would not have a friggin clue as to what the question was anyway.

We know.

So, I will just make up a question and answer it, . . .

So pretty much what you always do. OK.

. . Then you can tell me whether or not the answer fits in with your predetermined, Narrow, Deluded views.

If you would ever answer, I'd know. But you don't answer. So now trying to spin it as me not accepting the answer you gave is just another lie. You never answer. You usually answer some stupid unrelated tripe.

"Willows, I know that normal people like you. . . . .

Lol! If normal people made 26 posts a day this board would crash. Do you really think you're a normal person? Spamming a dead board? Tenuous grasp of reality? OCD on religion? Stop making me laugh.

have higher IQs. . .

The genius who spends his days spamming dubious logic to a dead board? A high IQ for you must be 71.

. . But what I really want to know is, What's it like to be able to sleep at night? "

Your posting patterns say you don't know. And we already know that OCD sufferers don't sleep well at night.

"Well, Ethong, Just the other night I had this dream that involved me and two women and. . . . . . "

And then the Pope started beating you.

Sorry. We know your that your dreams are OCD about religion too.

My God you're clueless.
ethang5
Posts: 19,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2019 7:44:02 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Did you not post their pictures?

He sure did.

we can take a peek at the first-class train system in India. . . . .
https://beinggregory. Files. Wordpress. Com. . .

Which doubles up as first-class bathroom facilities. . . . . .
https://i1. Wp. Com. . .

Then, There are the super-modern shopping malls. . . .
https://images. Firstpost. Com. . .

With such variety in the trendy boutiques. . . .
https://www. Dondereciclo. Org. Ar. . .

And the ritzy boulevards. . . . . .
https://c8. Alamy. Com. . .

Of course, Every home has a built-in spa. . . . .
https://static. Toiimg. Com. . .

And we mustn't overlook the sacred cow. . . .
https://gillank. Files. Wordpress. Com. . .

Lol
ken1122
Posts: 1,737
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2019 11:34:29 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
ken1122 wrote:
Tradesecret wrote:
Therefore evil is a problem for the atheist not for the theist.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.

(Ken)
I disagree; each person has their own standard for morality.

If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil.

With everybody having their own standard, There is often disagreement on what is evil. What one person call evil, Another may call good.

I gave you the most comprehensive evidence of an evil genocidal God taken straight from scriptures. Try to find any good in his evil genocidal lunacy.

Christians who accept the bible as inerrant word of God have to accept God is both a genocidal maniac, A liar and a lunatic.

There was a time in biblical history when Christians/theists saw their God/Jesus mocked, Beaten, Ridiculed and crucified and there were consequences throughout the Bible. But we now have a generation of atheists who would like to see a repeat of that happen again so they can be convinced and are here to closely follow the prophesies alluded to by Christian so they don't miss the event.

But Christians want to reassure Atheists those days were terrible and fortunately were shortened. So they don't deny the God of the bible was a bumbling genocidal lunatic, They just want atheists to accept it and pray with them the genocidal lunatic does not return.

Mark 13:20 If the Lord had not shortened those days, Nobody would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, Whom He has chosen, He has shortened them.
-----
Scriptural evidence that God was a liar and lunatic too.
http://www. Debate. Org. . .

God lies and sends prophets or lying spirits to deceive.

1 Kings 22:23
Now therefore, Behold, The LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, And the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2 Chronicles 18:22
Now therefore, Behold, The LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, And the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

Care to address what I said?
Harikrish
Posts: 29,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2019 4:42:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
ken1122 wrote:
ken1122 wrote:
Tradesecret wrote:
Therefore evil is a problem for the atheist not for the theist.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.

(Ken)
I disagree; each person has their own standard for morality.

If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil.

With everybody having their own standard, There is often disagreement on what is evil. What one person call evil, Another may call good.

I gave you the most comprehensive evidence of an evil genocidal God taken straight from scriptures. Try to find any good in his evil genocidal lunacy.

Christians who accept the bible as inerrant word of God have to accept God is both a genocidal maniac, A liar and a lunatic.

There was a time in biblical history when Christians/theists saw their God/Jesus mocked, Beaten, Ridiculed and crucified and there were consequences throughout the Bible. But we now have a generation of atheists who would like to see a repeat of that happen again so they can be convinced and are here to closely follow the prophesies alluded to by Christian so they don't miss the event.

But Christians want to reassure Atheists those days were terrible and fortunately were shortened. So they don't deny the God of the bible was a bumbling genocidal lunatic, They just want atheists to accept it and pray with them the genocidal lunatic does not return.

Mark 13:20 If the Lord had not shortened those days, Nobody would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, Whom He has chosen, He has shortened them.
-----
Scriptural evidence that God was a liar and lunatic too.
http://www. Debate. Org. . .

God lies and sends prophets or lying spirits to deceive.

1 Kings 22:23
Now therefore, Behold, The LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, And the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2 Chronicles 18:22
Now therefore, Behold, The LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, And the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

Care to address what I said?

Why does everyone have their own standards of morality when the commandments God laid out are easy to identify and understand?
Eg. Thou shall not kill or honour thy father and mother.

As for evil. Evil is what evil does. And the Bible tells us God is a Genocidal liar and lunatic.

The curse of Ham is the biblical curse that marked Africans with black colour and negroid appearance which Christians justified to enslave Africans.

Evidence for the curse of Ham.

Phenotypic Variations Between Blacks and Non-Blacks

Blacks have wide noses, Kinky hair, Black skin, High waist-to-hip ratios, Prognathic jaws, Long arms, And soulless, Vacant eyes. Everything about them is ugly.

Blacks have the lowest IQ in the world (ignoring the equally disgusting and black-skinned Australian aborigines for convenience"s sake). The Bushmen clock in at around 50 IQ, The average Bantu achieves the mentally retarded level of 70 IQ, And the highly cultivated, Well fed, Well cared for, Partially White African-Americans reach 85 IQ. IQ has an enormous impact on lifestyle, Achievement, And behavior. IQ correlates to poverty, Crime, Mortality, And broken homes on one side " and education, Wealth, Human accomplishment, Long life and stable homes on the other. According to IQ and the Wealth of Nations, A country must have a minimum average IQ of 90 to run a technological civilization. It is not a far cry to say it is IQ that makes humans better than the animals, And it is IQ that makes some humans better than other humans.

The curse of Ham was clearly pointing to African slavery.
Genesis 9:25 The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. "

From African slaves to African shitholes.

https://i. Ytimg. Com/vi/RfIcDEI1jWU/hqdefault. Jpg
http://www. Brh. Org. Uk/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/slavedealer. Jpg
http://4. Bp. Blogspot. Com/-nWfci5zYfTo/T5dLf3aoxVI/AAAAAAAAK7w/S96vcRUimYs/s640/slave+punishment2. Jpg
http://africanah. Org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/FabriceMarrons2014c. Jpg
http://www. Anotherafrica. Net/wp/wp-content/gallery/fabrice-monteiro-marron/aa_fabricemonteiromarron_03. Jpg

Exhibit A. Ethang admits he is both an African and a slave.

Ethang is a black negroid slave by his own confession.
Ethang5: Lol. Of course I am African, Why do you keep talking about America?
Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where I run Bibles to countries which outlaw the possession of Bibles. Been doing it for more than 15 years to many countries. I have 3 children.

Ethang is the perfect example of Africans following a slave religion.

1 Ethang5 wrote: I am a proud slave of His Royal Highness, King Jesus Christ.
Ethang is a proud slave.

2 Ethang said: For His Majesty King Jesus? Full time slave here moron. Jesus has my all.
Ethang is a full time slave.

3 Ethang said: Say it again, I want to lift His name so high, The world is blinded by His shine.
Ethang wants Jesus to shine his light on the black negroid slaves like him.

4 Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where I run Bibles to countries which outlaw the possession of Bibles. I have 3 children.
And Ethang runs Bibles as a full time slave for free.

5 Ethang5 said: Of course. Been doing it for more than 15 years to many countries.
Wow, Ethang worked for free as a full time slave.
This is why there is no Indian slavery. Indians would never work for free. That would be slavery! Or more accurately African slavery.

6 Ethang said: An indian dalit would know. The vile caste system never let's you out.
After you said: No sir. Hinduism has a sick caste system. India has outlawed it.
So the caste system has been outlawed in India. Sounds like another Indian success.

7 Ethang5 said: Right. I didn't sleep, I didn't shop, I didn't fly, Because I didn't mention those things. Can the class say idiot? I thought it could.
Slaves don't have any rights. Full time slaves like Ethang have even less rights.

8 Ethang said: Except shithole indians themselves. That's why India couldn't export them.
Which is why there were no Indian slavery. But Africans were exported to many parts of the world as slaves. Ethang should read African slavery under Arabs, America and Christian countries.

9 Ethang said: They didn't learn much in 14 centuries of slavery did they? Low IQ morons.
Ethang lives in Ghana Africa which was the centre of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.
Ghana Africa exported 20 million African slaves throughout the world. Ironic comment from Ethang.

10 Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where slavery is still practiced today.
Not only is slavery still practiced in Africa. You can buy a African slave for $400 in Libya. And Ethang confessed he is a full time slave. See point 1 and 2.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.