Fish For God?

[krakonfour]

Oh this is going to be fun !

Read the Temptation of Christ. While fasting in a desert, for no real reason except it satisfies God or something, Jesus is confronted by Satan and reminded that, hey, you are god, right? Or the son of god, whatever. You can make bread out of stones, have angels break your fall if you slip on a cliff, etc.. And even though the devil is by all means completely correct and even quotes scripture to support these facts, Jesus still condemns him. For what? Telling him the truth? Fucks sake, after Satan leaves angels come and feed him Mana and shit, one of the very things Satan tempted Jesus to do! I guess its only wrong if Satan is telling you to do it.

Satan's acts are of his own will... he didn't go and try to convince Jesus because God told him to.
Jesus is God only for Catholics and some other branches of Christianity. Also, the whole temptation of Christ and the details of his confrontation with the devil are... uh, written by two men who weren't there.

Let's suppose all of that is true. The morale of the story is to not give in to your own power. In this case, Jesus had magical power, but strength, wealth or influence fall under the same categories. Satan also didn't just state facts and leave... he told Jesus to deny the existence of God and use his power to take over the world by force.

Angels fed Jesus after the fast was over, and I don't know what 'mana and shit' you are talking about, because I'm sure Jesus ate human food.

Think of it as a marathon. Jesus was running a certain number of kilometers, and we have the devil trying to stop running, rest and take over the world. After the race is over, Jesus rests. Was it wrong of him to rest?

In the end, the only thing Satan does wrong is tell the truth, and ask Jesus to worship him. And the latter is essentially no better or worse than Yahweh asking anyone else to worship him, especially when you consider that Satan commits... precisely no wanton acts of destruction or anything like that that is recorded in the bible. Yahweh, on the other hand, freely doles out divine punishment to the Egyptians by killing their children, and once his beloved Jews are free he then instructs them to go east to kill everyone they meet in what is now Jerusalem because "this is your promised land now, fuck 'em". The only difference between Satan asking you to worship him and Yahweh asking you to worship him is.... shut up, Satan. No actual argument to satisfy the mortal logic we've been gifted with, just a STFU to anyone who questions Yahweh the Warmonger.

I could try to convince you that adding truth to a lie makes for a very good lie, and that Satan's essentially benign request of changing ruler entails a world of hurt for all of humanity, but it seems your vision of Satan differs completely from mine, and I'm not here to argue whether a faith is true or not.

As for the killing-the-children part: Moses requested the Pharaoh stop enslaving his people and abusing them. The Pharaoh denied this, so Moses asked for safe passage away from Egyptian lands. Denied. So there was an ultimatum delivered: Free the Jews or God will punish your people himself.
Yeah, so the Pharoah refused time and time again, preferring to keep them as slaves at the cost of famine, drought, plague and first-borns dying. The Jews escaped anyway instead of waiting for God to punish the Egyptians some more. The Pharaoh decided to run them down and kill them all. God defended the Jew by drowning the pursuers.

The the Jews came to their promised land and tried to settle down. The surrounding tribes did not like the newcomers and their God, so they attacked them. Jews defended themselves. Yeah, people died.
If God was a Warmonger, he would have asked the Jews to revolt against the Egyptian rules, and then to attack the tribes in their promised land instead of going there bare-handed and waiting to be killed.

As for the logical argument against Satan... it's there, you just have to read the book or stop relying on scriptures meant to convince Medieval peasants.

Double standard, by definition. Saying its a matter of mortal perspective is special pleading and irrelevant.

And here's the funny part: Nothing that you quoted has anything to do with what you wrote as an answer. Heck, I was imagining what it was to be like God. You brought up the Jews.... okay.

Death is suffering. Fuck him.

I talked about the meaning of death in the previous post you didn't read. Also, Death is not necessarily suffering. I wouldn't feel hurt if Hitler died again, and a headshot is painless... are scared of death, or dislike it because it could be painful?

Suffering is evil. Fuck him.

I guess then that a flu shot is evil, and a sports exam is evil, and headaches are evil, and the wait between hitting the On button and the desktop appearing on your computer is evil too.

I can live a far more healthy and fulfilling life if Yahweh would fuck off to Hell and stop torturing people until they worship him blindly. Otherwise, he is an evil influence who people like myself with actual fucking morals should actively work to destroy and discredit. Animals have a different perspective from me too, but if I am attacked by a rabid dog I shoot the dog. Thanks for playing, try thinking ahead sometime and realize I've heard it all before. I used to be Catholic, I know the dogma and the lies.

How does God torture people? As far as I know, those outside of God's protection are.... that's it, outside of God's protection. Exposed to the elements. Disasters happen to them with nothing blunting the tragedy. He just doesn't DO anything if you don't worship him.

So, if you disbelieve in God, even if he exists (or not), and therefore doesn't do anything to you, you will hate him just because him is there?

As for evil influence, well, he's the guy that came up with morals and the basis for modern law upon which you decide what is evil or not so... confusion much? I think it's more misinformation and misdirected hate.

I don't know what you've heard before, or what exactly you're referring to in this case.

As for Catholics and whatever they do, no idea. I'm not Catholic.

Good point. I have epilepsy. I actually know what it is like to have one of these conditions. You don't. Why is that? Why did god decide, before I was ever born, that I have to be tested like that and you don't? Why is there no standard test, jackass, or did you not anticipate that you would be talking to someone who might actually have to deal with this shit?

You sir, need to calm yourself and your self-entitlement down.
You have no idea of who I am or what I might suffer from. Unlike you, I don't use my personal life to make a statement either.
God decided to give you epilepsy because he is ultimately responsible for the laws of genetics that governed whether or not you would receive the defective gene. God decided to give you epilepsy because he decided that it is a good test of your character to grow up and deal with the condition. He decided I should be tested differently. Whether or not I anticipated that a person I don't know beyond the username and number of posts has a genetic condition or not is not grounds to call me a jackass either. Are you jealous that I don't have epilepsy? Are you mad that I don't treat you specially or allow your words to pass differently through my head because you suffer in a certain way? I'm sure the quadriplegic dude upstairs has a lot more beef on you then.

There is no standard test because nobody is born the same way or lives the same life. Want perfect equality between all humans? Go to Heaven. Don't want to suffer? Go to Heaven. Living with epilepsy for at most another 80 years is too much for you compared to living in heaven for millions of years afterwards? I guess that's a problem between you and the entity you hate so much.

Would you believe that the thing which made me realize that there is no such thing as the soul was having my brain scrambled just enough to lose all memory of walking home (effectively unconscious!) one day while on a walk? Why would God issue to me a test where the correct answer seems to be in direct contradiction with his book of prejudice and dogma?

Oh it'd be very interesting to see how you refuted the existence of a soul just by having a genetic condition. Please show us your work, or at least the mental steps.
As for the 'correct answer', it is to follow the laws that God asked you to follow for your own good and that of society... as for which book you are reading them from, or whether you believe this whole thing is bullwash meant to antagonize you, go ahead.

"Thou shalt not kill" only applies to us humans, huh? Again, double standards. Morality cannot abide by them.

Are you telling me that you followed this line of thought?!:
-God created natural disasters that kill people
-God does not feel guilty about killing his own creations and sending them to Heaven
-I, human, must therefore not feel guilty about killing my peers
-I should not base my morals on this law, and kill without guilt

This again is moronic self-entitlement. God gave life. He completely own all of creation. Whatever he does to you is his own problem; no-one and no-thing can stand up to his decisions. That includes taking back what is his: a life.

You, human, are a creature of Mud living on Earth. You own nothing but the sum of your actions, recorded in your soul (which may not exist). To take another life is stealing it from God. Stealing is bad. Killing, therefore, is bad.

Of course, you are free to not make your morality abide to this.

Its not about hate. Its about a desire to stop suffering. What you are saying is, God is a torturer. Torture often leads people to say whatever the torturer wants to hear, even if its a lie 9and self deception is quite possible!); to anyone who knows this, as God must know, the purpose of Torture therefore isn't to get the Truth. Its torture for its own sake.

I have difficulty understanding your statement(s) here. Desire to stop suffering is natural. Human science and technology helps in that aspect, but in the end, it is just temporary bodily pain and the real question is what to do with it. You could, for example, consider it as torture forcing you to follow the laws imposed by God.

But there's a problem. You wish for God to relieve you from your suffering? Nope. He won't grant it. At least, not to my understanding. God does not go around reducing pain and ending suffering on Earth. Pray all you want, he won't do that.
All you can do is act good and prepare your path for Heaven, where all suffering is relieved forever. Until then, medicine, nature or nothing will heal you.

Why then would you follow the laws if there is no immediate relief from pain? Up to you to decide.

Now, what do you mean by Truth? Torturing for information you already have is sadistic. Torturing for information you don't have (how you are going to act) is stupid too. Why cause pain to a few, and grant riches and health to others?

I don't hate God. I hate the mindless assholes who buy into his lies, and downplay the significance of my health problems as "a test". If god exists, would I hate him? Or would I be utterly disgusted by him? Would I simply decide that for the good of my conscience that I must act against him, without any emotion at all? You work from stereotypes, you end up with utter crap dribbling from your mouth. Or in this case, keyboard.

I hate people who insult others without knowing them.
Now, I didn't downplay the significance of a health problem. I didn't make a huge, self-entitling deal out of it either. I just said everyone gets his own lot in life, and the variations cause jealousy, pity and indifference, and that its up to you to make your way through it. As for stereotypes, I'm not aware that I use any, so please inform me when I do instead of calling it utter crap not worth answering... which you should have done if it was the case.

The way your post is only loosely related to the passages you quoted makes me believe that I'm only a punchbag for your
personal issues. I don't mind. You're just another faceless poster full of hate and curses.

Nice try, but everyone has evil thoughts.

I wan't trying to do anything other than explain how I consider evil thoughts to be. How can you object with a statement I already made?

How else would we know our own vices? How else would we know what behaviors we should not act upon? If God has made Thoughtcrime a sin it is only so we do not know when we have committed real crimes. Conclusion: God is Big Brother, and therefor evil.

This is an inconsistency thankfully limited to Christianity. Not my problem.

By the way, I also suffer from ADHD. Why would God create mental problems like that in the first place if he is perfect and wished to test his creations mentally? Sabotaging us in this way doesn't serve any purpose, unless he wanted to create us merely for his own sadistic pleasure.

The mentally sick are treated as children: irresponsible of their actions, and therefore guaranteed to go to heaven whatever they do.
For the rest, we have no excuse for giving in to our dark sides. How can judge us while influencing our minds at the same time? He can only judge clear minds then.

ADHD in specific is a human-caused disorder in 91% of the cases, through poor upbringing during the crucial periods of brain development (6-12yrs). God might not be fully responsible here.

Hell, why did he create anything at all? What is God, and why would he feel the need to make this uncaring cosmos? At least a sadistic god has a reason-- to create playthings he can torment. The logic of testing us mentally can be turned around, and it is God who is found wanting for answers.

The heck if I know the answer to questions theologists have pondered centuries about!

Its funny shattering people's worldviews using their own logic.

It is funny! We aren't even discussing my worldviews! My own logic! How many types of logic are there?!

If we are inherently bad, and we are God's creation made in his image, then God is inherently bad AND has no higher power keeping him in check. Good job not thinking that one through.

Created in his own image, again, is a christian thing. If Image were to be taken literally, we are all minigods with reality-bending powers. We are not, so degrees of interpretation are allowed even within Christianity. For example, we might have the same shape but a different brain or something.

Also, if God is evil, how can he create angels and heaven?
Finally, how did I not think that one through. You added a hypothesis I didn't use, then said my conclusion is wrong based on your own addition. Heh.

Its good to overcome evil thought, but still having those thoughts after overcoming them is human. Repressing them is dangerous. Acknowledging them is healthy, and necessary towards changing yourself and understanding those who are less virtuous than you.

First line, good. The rest is psychology, not religion.

The concept of repentance however ranges from the utterly bizarre to things that are counterproductive. Rituals that don't mean anything, giving money to institutions that actually act against your conscience, and confession, which only serves as a painted on excuse for not acting to fix your misdeeds in real life because, hey, you've already apologized to the Almighty, what is more important than saving your own soul?

You're criticizing a human institution here, not something ordered by God. Or maybe it is, according to your religion. Don't know.

In short, you seem ignorant of how anyone outside your religious circle thinks about morals and logic, and seem to operate from the assumption that we have never read a bible even though few people are raised as atheists.

You confuse trying not to comment on the differences between my and your beliefs, because one of the is invariably wrong and leads to a lot of butthurt and flaming, with being ignorant of any other belief than mine.

The Bible is not the only thing in the world people can believe in.

[krakonfour]

I've never understood how there is any conflict between subjects with free will and someone who knows the subjects well enough that he can predict what choices the subjects will make.

Are you :
-agreeing with the fact that god can work out all the consequences of a person's actions, and merely waits for you to select one of the paths freely, ie a 'crossroads' type of fate, where the roads are known but the direction you'll take aren't.
-disagreeing with the above and saying that knowing the possible consequences allows you to know THE consequence.

The common fundie counter to that statement is that God has a reason for everything that happens, including the existence of evil.

Which is a meaningless response. For what reason was evil created? is the correct counter. There is no way for them to answer that question without making god out to be either vile, or redefining his characteristics until he is no longer a sentient force in the world.

What's a fundie?
Why would God be the driving force behind everything, including evil?

I think someone should define evil more clearly? Is it what you call injustice to humans, or is it the transgression of a certain set of laws, or is it something that you feel uncomfortable with...?

The way I know it, God did not create evil. He created Satan, the angel, who became jealous of the status humans had in Heaven despite their seemingly inferior nature and power. Angels obeyed god when he ordered them to bow down to Adam and Eve. Satan did not, and became the devil, and vowed to make sure Adam and Eve left heaven and never returned.

The last part is interesting. Humans return went to Earth, where they were subjected to the hardships of hunger, death, disease and the weather. God gave the possibility to work against these factors using the physical laws that govern Earth. Laws are laws, they have no intent, so all these disasters don't actually aim for humans. The hurricane did not blow apart your house, you built your house in the middle of Hurricane alley.
Satan is cited as the source of Evil. He is not. He tries to influence humans until they give in to the dark side they contain, who then move on and act out their thoughts.

So is God vile for not protecting humans from the consequences of their own actions?

THE MAYBE OF TOLERANCE AND INTER-RELIGIOUS RESPECT.

[Eternal_Freedom]

why blame God for the murder deciding to kill? Why blame God for a massacre a General decided must be done?

Actually, I'd say you can blame God for things like that. If we posit that God knows for certain that the man will murder someone, or the General will start a massacre, and does nothing to prevent it despite having both the knowledge of the consequences and the ability to stop it, then it's pretty damn immoral.

As far as I know, if a human were in such a situation you could probably charge them with accessory to murder.

[krakonfour]

why blame God for the murder deciding to kill? Why blame God for a massacre a General decided must be done?

Actually, I'd say you can blame God for things like that. If we posit that God knows for certain that the man will murder someone, or the General will start a massacre, and does nothing to prevent it despite having both the knowledge of the consequences and the ability to stop it, then it's pretty damn immoral.

As far as I know, if a human were in such a situation you could probably charge them with accessory to murder.

Aha, but the whole point of free will and judging your actions is that God gives you the choice of perpetrating the massacre or not.
So either you believe we live in a predetermined theatrical play, where everything bad that happens is because of an Evil God, or you believe that we are free to choose our own path, and therefore evil is out of god's hands.

[Eternal_Freedom]

That's the easy way out. I wasn't talking about free will. God has exact knowledge (supposedly) of the murderer's decision, and has the power (supposedly) to stop him, but does not. Willfully does not act. That's accessory to murder I think (I'm not certain on the legal definition, but even if it isn't accessory to murder, it's still fucking wrong.

Consider, if you knew for certain that your neighbour was going to kill his wife, and you had the power to stop him, and chose not to, you'd be a pretty horrible person wouldn't you.

And for the record, I believe that there is no higher power, so your false dichotomy at the end there fails.

[krakonfour]

That's the easy way out. I wasn't talking about free will. God has exact knowledge (supposedly) of the murderer's decision, and has the power (supposedly) to stop him, but does not. Willfully does not act. That's accessory to murder I think (I'm not certain on the legal definition, but even if it isn't accessory to murder, it's still fucking wrong.

Consider, if you knew for certain that your neighbour was going to kill his wife, and you had the power to stop him, and chose not to, you'd be a pretty horrible person wouldn't you.

And for the record, I believe that there is no higher power, so your false dichotomy at the end there fails.

The logical consequence of having both free will and God's omniscience is the easy way out? Okay. I guess 2 is also the easy way out of 1+1.

You keep maintaining your hypothesis that God must not allow free will, or else your argument falls apart. And because you don't believe in God, then the dichotomy you insist must exist has to be mine, and must fail.

Emm. Well, have fun!

[Eternal_Freedom]

I didn't mention free will, I was pointing out that you can blame a God for a murderer's action, if that God knows the decision, is able to prevent it and willingly does not.

And the false dichotomy was directed at this part:

So either you believe we live in a predetermined theatrical play, where everything bad that happens is because of an Evil God, or you believe that we are free to choose our own path, and therefore evil is out of god's hands.

Your argument assumes there is indeed a God, evil or otherwise.

The "easy way out" is directed at this part:

Aha, but the whole point of free will and judging your actions is that God gives you the choice of perpetrating the massacre or not.

Yes, you have the choice. God also has the ability and the choice to stop you. Since he does not, he's an accessory to the crime and is therefore immoral and a pretty damn terrible being.

[bilateralrope]

I've never understood how there is any conflict between subjects with free will and someone who knows the subjects well enough that he can predict what choices the subjects will make.

Are you :
-agreeing with the fact that god can work out all the consequences of a person's actions, and merely waits for you to select one of the paths freely, ie a 'crossroads' type of fate, where the roads are known but the direction you'll take aren't.
-disagreeing with the above and saying that knowing the possible consequences allows you to know THE consequence.

Neither.

I'm saying that, while humans have the free will to make their own choices, an all-knowing god would already know what choice they will make. Therefore anyone who tries to use free will as an argument against an evil god is speaking bullshit.
Anyone who tries to defend god by saying he is testing people is speaking bullshit because god knows what will happen before the testing begins.

Lets take a simple example:
- Take a healthy vegetarian with no mental problems.
- Stare him for a day or two.
- Have him rescued.
- Have his rescuers offer him one of two meals. One meal is vegetarian, the other isn't.
The vegetarian does have the free will to choose which food to eat. Or to choose to eat nothing. At the same time you know that he will choose the vegetarian meal.

If you want to claim that 'free will' is a credible response to 'god is evil', please tell me how the vegetarian doesn't have free will in this scenario. Because, to an all knowing god, all tests will be as easily predictable as the results of this scenario is to us.

If you want to convince me that god is moral despite the way he 'tests' his followers, you will need to convince me that it will be moral to perform the scenario I described above.

[Formless]

This is an inconsistency thankfully limited to Christianity. Not my problem.

Are you trying to tell me that you aren't christian? If so, why are we having this argument about christian beliefs? Are you trolling or something? Because you sound like a hardcore christian apologist who is now backpedaling. Please answer this question, because you have made tons of claims and arguments, and if they aren't even things you believe, I am not going to argue with a dishonest shit.

[Borgholio]

What's a fundie?

Fundamentalist. Someone who believes the word of God without question.

Why would God be the driving force behind everything, including evil?

Well if he created the entire goddamn universe, he must have created the means for evil to exist.

I think someone should define evil more clearly? Is it what you call injustice to humans, or is it the transgression of a certain set of laws, or is it something that you feel uncomfortable with...?

The deliberate causing of suffering to another without just cause. For instance, what God did in murdering the children of Egypt is evil. What did those children ever do to him?

[Formless]

Real answers to his arguments, etc. But I do want an answer to that question, because otherwise I feel like you are wasting my time on purpose.

Satan's acts are of his own will... he didn't go and try to convince Jesus because God told him to.
Jesus is God only for Catholics and some other branches of Christianity. Also, the whole temptation of Christ and the details of his confrontation with the devil are... uh, written by two men who weren't there.

Let's suppose all of that is true. The morale of the story is to not give in to your own power. In this case, Jesus had magical power, but strength, wealth or influence fall under the same categories. Satan also didn't just state facts and leave... he told Jesus to deny the existence of God and use his power to take over the world by force.

Angels fed Jesus after the fast was over, and I don't know what 'mana and shit' you are talking about, because I'm sure Jesus ate human food.

Think of it as a marathon. Jesus was running a certain number of kilometers, and we have the devil trying to stop running, rest and take over the world. After the race is over, Jesus rests. Was it wrong of him to rest?

No, the message is clearly and explicitely stated.

"Again, it is written, 'you shall not put the lord, your God, to the test." (Matthew 4:7, New American Bible. Yes, I own a copy)

"It also says, 'you shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test." (Luke 4:12, same bible)

The point is clear: God gets to test us, but we and Satan don't get to test the bloody cosmic hypocrite. Of course, in this world and on this forum, that's bullshit.

Also: "And then the devil left him and, behold, angels came and ministered to him." (Matthew 4:11) Considering the context of the entire new testament and Jesus' quip about how bread alone won't sustain yadda yadda, I'm guessing they didn't bring terrestrial food.

So he's a bloody hypocrite on the whole bread issue too, in any case. He could have had angels come at any time, just like Satan pointed out. He just felt like being a smug douchbag, and ate anyway after Satan wasn't around. Oh, i guessed you missed that part. Your marathon analogy doesn't work, because the story clearly takes place at the very end of his fast.

I don't particularly care if Prodistants think Jesus is God or not. It says he is so many times in the bible, the ones who deny it are necessarily denying what's in the bloody book. The Catholics are at least consistent with their source material this way. And on top of that, the whole "do not test God" speil makes no sense unless Jesus is God. Otherwise, he's just a normal human being (who can somehow survive 40 days without food and drink. Not a god my ass)

Likewise, for your own good don't try to play the "neither writer was there!" card if you want this conversation to continue. None of the biblical writers are actually known, but it IS known that the four testaments were written decades after Jesus' death. So to make that argument essentially concedes the entire basis of the Christian religion, because it almost certain that none of the new testament was written by eyewitnesses, or even the people whose namesakes were used.

I could try to convince you that adding truth to a lie makes for a very good lie, and that Satan's essentially benign request of changing ruler entails a world of hurt for all of humanity, but it seems your vision of Satan differs completely from mine, and I'm not here to argue whether a faith is true or not.

Actually, I have no concept of Satan. I don't believe in any deity. And I don't believe that satan being ruler is any worse-- why? Because for one thing, Jesus constantly uses the word "Satan" as an insulting term for anyone who disagrees with him, not a specific entity. Meaning that most of the political leaders I vote for are "satan" because they dissagree with Jesus' morals. Of course, Jesus' use of the word contradicts the book of Job, where Satan is clearly a specific angel of the Lord, whose very job is to test God's creations (and by proxy, God himself).

As for the killing-the-children part: Moses requested the Pharaoh stop enslaving his people and abusing them. The Pharaoh denied this, so Moses asked for safe passage away from Egyptian lands. Denied. So there was an ultimatum delivered: Free the Jews or God will punish your people himself.

...and this is after he inflicted a dozen other plagues on Egypt to force the issue. This isn't about freedom, its about vengeance. The children of the Egyptians ARE NOT THE PHAROH. The Egyptian people were innocents, and God slaughtered their firstborns wholesale. In other words, there is no interpretation that doesn't conclude with "and God committed an unforgivable atrocity". That is not how any moral creature responds to a crime. That's how a psychopath responds. End of line.

The the Jews came to their promised land and tried to settle down. The surrounding tribes did not like the newcomers and their God, so they attacked them. Jews defended themselves. Yeah, people died.

"See, I am sending an angel before you, to guard you on your wayand bring you to the place I have prepaired." (Exodus 23:20 clearly this is the Promised Land mentioned so often!)

"My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out." (Exodus 23:23 that's a pretty strong statement of intent there!)

"I will have the fear of me precede you, so that I will throw into panic every nation you reach. I will make all your enemies turn from you in flight. And ahead of you I will send hornets to drive the Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites out of your way. But not in one year will I drive them all out before you; else the land will become so desolate that the wild beasts will multiply against you. Instead, I will drive them out little by little before you, until you have grown numerous enough to take possession of the land." (exodus 23:27-31 confirming that he has a specific plan to invade, and confirming that this warfare is all about controlling the land)

Read the damn bible before saying "oh, they weren't the ones who attacked first! IT was the people who already lived there!" God had a specific, systematic and detailed plan to exterminate everyone living between (and I quote) "the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River". This is pure tribal warfare bullshit, and Yahweh was fully committed to any atrocity needed to get the job done. He is malevolent to anyone not already defined as his "Chosen People". There is no other interpretation here to a modern reader: the judeo-christian God is evil and a murderer. What you don't want to hear is what damns your entire religion.

And here's the funny part: Nothing that you quoted has anything to do with what you wrote as an answer. Heck, I was imagining what it was to be like God. You brought up the Jews.... okay.

"God is testing us" and "God should not be tested" is the very definition of special pleading, you ignoramous. Read the damn book.

I talked about the meaning of death in the previous post you didn't read.

Irrelevant. Death is suffering, and that which makes us suffer is evil. Any "meaning" does not diminish that fact. This is very simple, try to get it through your thick skull.

I guess then that a flu shot is evil, and a sports exam is evil, and headaches are evil, and the wait between hitting the On button and the desktop appearing on your computer is evil too.

I happen to be very phiboc around needles. So yeah, its mundane but its still true. But from a religious perspective, necessary evils only exist because... god lets them exist. Because he can't change them? Because he doesn't know about it? Because he's a sadistic mass murdering psychopath? Take your pick. Epicuris' point is, by the conventional definition of God you can't have all three. The only other alternative I can think of is if he's just some mindless force like fate that really shouldn't need worship.

How does God torture people?

We have physical pain; pain that affects out body and might kill us. Things such as genetic diseases, epidemics, natural disasters, even the famines are entirely God's doing.

As far as I know, those outside of God's protection are.... that's it, outside of God's protection.

Then he is not all powerful: or else, not all loving.

So, if you disbelieve in God, even if he exists (or not), and therefore doesn't do anything to you, you will hate him just because him is there?

Only if he created evil; or spread evil. Or refuses to work against evil. I'd judge him the same way anyone would judge a human being-- including god himself.

As for evil influence, well, he's the guy that came up with morals and the basis for modern law upon which you decide what is evil or not so... confusion much? I think it's more misinformation and misdirected hate.

It can be demonstrated that this is a palefaced lie. All societies have morality. Not all societies believe in the same god, or even believe in A god. Bhuddists for instance have no official god they worship, and those that do venerate divine beings attribute morality to the impresonal cosmic forces of Karma and Darhma, not to a god. Humanists have the demonstrably strongest position of all: humans created morality. What morals do dogs have? Or bacteria? Or rocks? Or stars? None. Philosophers as far back as Aristotle and-- hey!-- Epicurus all observed this fact. Religious types ignored it, even as the Church decided to adopt pseudo-Aristotelian ethics. Oh the irony.

As for Catholics and whatever they do, no idea. I'm not Catholic.

But you are christian, I am to assume. It actually doesn't make much of a difference in my experience. The alternatives all read from the same book, and those prodestant sects which believe that the few who will be saved have already been chosen can kiss my ass. They have the weakest position of them all as far as morality is concerned. For if I am already going to hell, why should I give a damn what their god tells me to do? There is nothing I can do to change his opinion of me, and hell will almost certainly fill up with people I like. I'll take the good company over the dogmatic assholes any day.

You sir, need to calm yourself and your self-entitlement down.

Fuck you. I am calm. I can take as much time as I want to type this, in total calm, finding the words that describe my feelings towards your stupid religion in precicely as crass a manner as I like. Its not a face to face conversation, its text. You are obviously unaware that on this forum, I can call you out as the irritating insensitive self absorbed prick I think you would have to be to call a lifelong handicap a "test from god". This place isn't your youth group. Deal with it.

You talk about how maybe the test is to "recognize thinking that our pain is greater than those of others and so on..." but the fact is that you don't have to live with a true handicap like the ones I do, and have probably never voiced this crap to someone who does before. You don't realize how obnoxious it is to have someone diminish the actual problem that represents because you have never lived that way. I will make you eat your own words on this one.

You have no idea of who I am or what I might suffer from. Unlike you, I don't use my personal life to make a statement either.
God decided to give you epilepsy because he is ultimately responsible for the laws of genetics that governed whether or not you would receive the defective gene. God decided to give you epilepsy because he decided that it is a good test of your character to grow up and deal with the condition. He decided I should be tested differently. Whether or not I anticipated that a person I don't know beyond the username and number of posts has a genetic condition or not is not grounds to call me a jackass either. Are you jealous that I don't have epilepsy? Are you mad that I don't treat you specially or allow your words to pass differently through my head because you suffer in a certain way? I'm sure the quadriplegic dude upstairs has a lot more beef on you then.

Its hilarious to watch someone try in vain to pull off the armchair psychobabble routine when all I asked was a simple question: if God created suffering to be some sort of test, why is it that some must suffer more or differently than others? And why would some recieve tests that plainly demonstrate to them that there is no soul, or no god? The first is a simple problem of the test's validity. The second is a problem with the very factual foundation of the argument. That is why I brought up my personal maladies. That, and to highlight your arrogance.

And around here, not answering valid questions or arguments like these is worse than calling someone a jackass, jackass.

There is no standard test because nobody is born the same way or lives the same life. Want perfect equality between all humans? Go to Heaven. Don't want to suffer? Go to Heaven. Living with epilepsy for at most another 80 years is too much for you compared to living in heaven for millions of years afterwards? I guess that's a problem between you and the entity you hate so much.

If he is the all powerful creator he is stated to be, he could make everyone be born the same way and live under the same circumstances. That's the point of the Epicurean argument, idiot. He didn't have to create the Earth at all if ultimately, the only place completely devoid of suffering is Heaven. That's the point in asking what the hell IS god (aka the Ignostic argument). Now its becoming obvious that you are just repeating religious dogma to yourself until the-- hehehehe-- the people around you stop testing your beliefs.

Oh it'd be very interesting to see how you refuted the existence of a soul just by having a genetic condition. Please show us your work, or at least the mental steps.

premise: if my conscious experience is a physical process emergent of my brain, then disruptions of my brain's usual processes would necessarily entail a disruption of my conscious experience.

observation: when I experience a full siezure, I lose consciousness

observation 2: during a siezure, my brain's synapses are firing in such a manner (that is, all synapses firing in unison rather than their normal patterns) as to completely disrupt normal brain functions

Conclusion: because my consciousness does not continue under abnormal conditions linked directly to my brain's functioning, my consious awareness is a function of my brain.

The alternative hypothesis is that my counsious awareness is the product of a soul; this is based on the judeo-christian idea that the soul is a means of continuing conscious awareness after the death of the brain in an afterlife. However, I cannot even generate a proper method of testing that idea against the hypothesis that my brain generates my conscious awareness. Indeed, the two hypothesis are inconsistent with one another, and I have evidence for the former (materialistic explanation of Consciousness). Therefore, I have no reason to believe in the existence of the soul, despite what my religion told me.

Welcome to scientific skepticism 101. Class dismissed.

Are you telling me that you followed this line of thought?!:
-God created natural disasters that kill people
-God does not feel guilty about killing his own creations and sending them to Heaven
-I, human, must therefore not feel guilty about killing my peers
-I should not base my morals on this law, and kill without guilt

Strawman fallacy. You are misrepresenting step 2, and adding a conclusion to the end that I never reached or implied.

My reasoning is, death is suffering -> god commands others NOT to kill, showing that he knows death is suffering to mortals -> god kills and tells Jews to kill anyway, and feels that this is somehow fine because He did it or commanded it -> this is an inconsistency with the first two premises -> god is thus a murderer and a hypocrite.

Heaven never entered into it, because I have evidence against the existence of the soul. And I start by saying I *agree* with the commandment against killing.

The mentally sick are treated as children: irresponsible of their actions, and therefore guaranteed to go to heaven whatever they do.

Oh, so you don't understand the first thing about mental illness. Hint: it isn't the same thing as physical/mental retardation. That's just one form of it. Someone with OCD or ADHD or autism are all mentally ill (that's the polite term for it, BTW, not "mental sickness") yet all are capable of responsibility to some degree or another. Jackass.

ADHD in specific is a human-caused disorder in 91% of the cases, through poor upbringing during the crucial periods of brain development (6-12yrs). God might not be fully responsible here.

[/quote][/quote]
He is the Creator. He is responsible for all his creations. I think it even says so in the bible. Idiot.

The rest of your posts seem incapable of understand a simple observation: that suffering is an evil thing, therefor God is evil for causing (indeed, Creating) suffering. It all boils down to that. Also, you should have lurked more here, because when the board motto includes the phrase "mockery of stupid people" that should have been your hint that we aren't obliged to be polite.

[krakonfour]

Urgh, so much to answer.
Let me get this straight: I am not a Catholic. I'm not even Christian. I won't tell you what religion I am otherwise you'd starting attacking it, or its follower's actions, instead of discussing the questions. So, I'm just here, with the premise that Christianity is correct in all ways, and trying to work out the consequences from that. If you bring up a specific example in history proving you right, I don't give a damn. Read the book? You asked me dozens of times. Well, the answer is NO, I won't... I'll base my conclusions based solely on the hypotheses established at the beginning of each logical process, irrelevant of other information. If I find something wrong, I'll prefer to say that I don't know. If I find an inconsistency that ends the discussion, I'll use my own smoothed-out beliefs to continue. If you attack my own additions by telling me to read the book, stuff yourselves, I clearly state when I do so.

I also find your fear of pain disturbing. Ouch. Owee. That hurt. God is evil because he did not stop it. Guess what? THIS IS EARTH. You feel pain and die on Earth. It's the whole point of Earth, to be a harsher place to live in than Heaven. On Earth, you get temporary pleasures, limited happiness, constant restrictions and pain from various sources, self-inflicted or not. Get over it! If you trip over and fall, and bump your head, you're expecting God to rewind time, reduce gravity and heal your skin because you don't want pain? What's the point of removing pain when Heaven exists? Bah. If people can't get past their nervous sensations during their time on Earth, how the heck can they prepare for the millions of years of Heaven that coming at them?

Now let's move on. Unless you want to return to how God told the Jewish refugees to kill everyone in this or that book (why are there so many)?

I didn't mention free will, I was pointing out that you can blame a God for a murderer's action, if that God knows the decision, is able to prevent it and willingly does not.

Oh I get it now. According to you, God is evil because he allows the actions of a bad person to go through to their conclusion.... Well, how do we know if that person is bad if the evil thoughts stay just thoughts? How we do he is evil if the knife is still in the air?

If God stopped all suffering, and stopped all knife stabs and bullets in the air, then he'd have to punish people on intent and he can't do that without removing the choice of banishing those thoughts at the last second.

Also, God knowing the decision and having free will to be judged upon is a contradiction. Its one or the other. You can't be free to choose if your decision has already been made for you.

Your argument assumes there is indeed a God, evil or otherwise.

Yes, that is the premise upon which is constructed the argument. The third option is that there is no god and you can do whatever the hell you want as long as you escape the authorities.

Yes, you have the choice. God also has the ability and the choice to stop you. Since he does not, he's an accessory to the crime and is therefore immoral and a pretty damn terrible being.

[/Quote]

Let me rephrase that for you: I hate God because he makes everyone pay for the consequences of their actions in a land where suffering is part of the definition, as an accessory to the test.

[krakonfour]

Neither.

Dude, I said either he knows the decision or does not. There is no 'neither' in a yes/no question.

I'm saying that, while humans have the free will to make their own choices, an all-knowing god would already know what choice they will make. Therefore anyone who tries to use free will as an argument against an evil god is speaking bullshit.
Anyone who tries to defend god by saying he is testing people is speaking bullshit because god knows what will happen before the testing begins.

And I'm saying that an all-knowing God would already know the choices they can make. I'm not speaking bullshit, you're the one in confusion over how to prove your point of an evil god.

Here's a simple yes/no question for you:
Does God:
-Knows your choice, therefore you have no choice, therefore we are all puppets and there is nothing to be mad at and you can just go and sit in a corner waiting for God to decide the rest of your life for you. There is no test in this case.
-Knows only the possibilities, and it is up to you to make the choice, therefore free will exists and there is something to judge.

Lets take a simple example:
- Take a healthy vegetarian with no mental problems.
- Stare him for a day or two.
- Have him rescued.
- Have his rescuers offer him one of two meals. One meal is vegetarian, the other isn't.
The vegetarian does have the free will to choose which food to eat. Or to choose to eat nothing. At the same time you know that he will choose the vegetarian meal.

In this case, you've created a situation where only one option is available, which removes the option of choosing freely, and therefore you cannot be judged over the consequences of this.

Now, this assumes that the vegetarian will try and save his life and eat. I don't know if Christianity punishes people for trying to save themselves, if that is what you're implying.

If you want to claim that 'free will' is a credible response to 'god is evil', please tell me how the vegetarian doesn't have free will in this scenario. Because, to an all knowing god, all tests will be as easily predictable as the results of this scenario is to us.

He doesn't have free will unless he wants to kill himself, which humans are built to avoid. I think suicide is not allowed in Christianity too...

If you want to convince me that god is moral despite the way he 'tests' his followers, you will need to convince me that it will be moral to perform the scenario I described above.

As far as I know, God is not bound by morals because he can just create a universe where the morals are different in a blink of the eye. That's the power of an entity able to change the rules. And that scenario is actually a moral one, and the rescuers will be rewarded, because they're feeding someone and vegetarians are willfully removing part of God's gifts (meat) on Earth from themselves. I don't believe God created such a thing on Earth only to remove it from us.

[krakonfour]

Are you trying to tell me that you aren't christian?

Problem?

If so, why are we having this argument about christian beliefs? Are you trolling or something? Because you sound like a hardcore christian apologist who is now backpedaling. Please answer this question, because you have made tons of claims and arguments, and if they aren't even things you believe, I am not going to argue with a dishonest shit.

I see that philosophical and moral discussions fly right over your head.

[krakonfour]

Fundamentalist. Someone who believes the word of God without question.

Whoah, why would they do that? God gave us intelligence to understand the world and question his existence. Blind belief is worthless.

Well if he created the entire goddamn universe, he must have created the means for evil to exist.

Evil is a choice that breaks the rules, so if you're one of those that says free will does not exist bla bla it's God that is pulling the trigger, because he made triggers alongside the sea, the sky and animals... then there's no point in blaming anyone for anything because blame supposed someone cares about the masses of puppets controlled by pre-determined events.

The deliberate causing of suffering to another without just cause. For instance, what God did in murdering the children of Egypt is evil. What did those children ever do to him?

Whether the cause is just, or whether a cause exists or not, depends on whether you want to see it or not. As I said before, I'm not trying here to convince or comment about beliefs.
This returns to the concept of 'Who owns life?'. If God created life, and gave those babies souls, then takes them back to heaven before they were judged on Earth, then it is on the same scale as a forest burning up and thousands of animals being charred alive.

If humans managed to create life of their own, and God decided to kill their creations, that would be murder. If a human decided to kill the creations of God, then that is murder. Guess what? God created us. We can't kill each other but he can do whatever he wants. Thankfully, he is a just God and won't go about killing people randomly. Death, illness, natural disasters abide the laws of physics and probability of which he is ultimately the cause and can influence in special occasions.

[Terralthra]

Oh I get it now. According to you, God is evil because he allows the actions of a bad person to go through to their conclusion.... Well, how do we know if that person is bad if the evil thoughts stay just thoughts? How we do he is evil if the knife is still in the air?

If God stopped all suffering, and stopped all knife stabs and bullets in the air, then he'd have to punish people on intent and he can't do that without removing the choice of banishing those thoughts at the last second.

There is no punishment in stopping bullets. God could, if omnipotent, simply stop any bullet that would kill someone, with no further action taken. No one punished, no one's free will removed, only suffering prevented. He does not. Either he's not omnipotent, does not exist, or does not care to prevent suffering and death with no other consequence.

[krakonfour]

Real answers to his arguments, etc. But I do want an answer to that question, because otherwise I feel like you are wasting my time on purpose.

And I suppose you have better things to do on an internet forum? Free will! You can discuss these things with someone else too. I'm being respectful here and not pushing my own beliefs to the forefront and claiming some things are basically wrong, fabricated or illogical, and trying instead to discuss them with you.

It's you who assumes that I must believe in Nietzsche to discuss his ideas, or that I must believe in Aristote's four elements before I can discuss matter. No. I don't need to believe in Christianity to know what it holds for true, and try and work out the consequences.

No, the message is clearly and explicitely stated.

"Again, it is written, 'you shall not put the lord, your God, to the test." (Matthew 4:7, New American Bible. Yes, I own a copy)

"It also says, 'you shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test." (Luke 4:12, same bible)

The point is clear: God gets to test us, but we and Satan don't get to test the bloody cosmic hypocrite. Of course, in this world and on this forum, that's bullshit.

I'm sorry I didn't get to read that, but I do know that humans are not allowed to judge God on an equal basis. Except if you're mad that you don't have God's power, which is like being jealous of a lion for being strong or the Earth for being big.

So he's a bloody hypocrite on the whole bread issue too, in any case. He could have had angels come at any time, just like Satan pointed out. He just felt like being a smug douchbag, and ate anyway after Satan wasn't around. Oh, i guessed you missed that part. Your marathon analogy doesn't work, because the story clearly takes place at the very end of his fast.

Resting after a marathon = Eating after a fast.
To stay in the marathon analogy, you're saying that Satan told Jesus he could stop running any time he wanted before the finish line, but he felt like a smug douchebag and stopped running anyway after it was over.

Yeah.

I don't particularly care if Prodistants think Jesus is God or not. It says he is so many times in the bible, the ones who deny it are necessarily denying what's in the bloody book.

I don't know who Prodistants are, I am not a Prodistant, and whether or not Jesus is God or not was explicitly show as my personal opinion and has nothing to do with the discussion other than as a sidenote.

The Catholics are at least consistent with their source material this way. And on top of that, the whole "do not test God" speil makes no sense unless Jesus is God. Otherwise, he's just a normal human being (who can somehow survive 40 days without food and drink. Not a god my ass)

Some Christians interpret those 40 days as 'just a long time' in the writing of the time.

Likewise, for your own good don't try to play the "neither writer was there!" card if you want this conversation to continue. None of the biblical writers are actually known, but it IS known that the four testaments were written decades after Jesus' death. So to make that argument essentially concedes the entire basis of the Christian religion, because it almost certain that none of the new testament was written by eyewitnesses, or even the people whose namesakes were used.

Ah, very sorry. Won't do that again, even if I tell you that I 'supposed all that was true'.

Actually, I have no concept of Satan. I don't believe in any deity. And I don't believe that satan being ruler is any worse-- why? Because for one thing, Jesus constantly uses the word "Satan" as an insulting term for anyone who disagrees with him, not a specific entity. Meaning that most of the political leaders I vote for are "satan" because they dissagree with Jesus' morals. Of course, Jesus' use of the word contradicts the book of Job, where Satan is clearly a specific angel of the Lord, whose very job is to test God's creations (and by proxy, God himself).

Cool.

...and this is after he inflicted a dozen other plagues on Egypt to force the issue. This isn't about freedom, its about vengeance. The children of the Egyptians ARE NOT THE PHAROH. The Egyptian people were innocents, and God slaughtered their firstborns wholesale. In other words, there is no interpretation that doesn't conclude with "and God committed an unforgivable atrocity". That is not how any moral creature responds to a crime. That's how a psychopath responds. End of line.

The the Jews came to their promised land and tried to settle down. The surrounding tribes did not like the newcomers and their God, so they attacked them. Jews defended themselves. Yeah, people died.

"See, I am sending an angel before you, to guard you on your wayand bring you to the place I have prepaired." (Exodus 23:20 clearly this is the Promised Land mentioned so often!)

"My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out." (Exodus 23:23 that's a pretty strong statement of intent there!)

"I will have the fear of me precede you, so that I will throw into panic every nation you reach. I will make all your enemies turn from you in flight. And ahead of you I will send hornets to drive the Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites out of your way. But not in one year will I drive them all out before you; else the land will become so desolate that the wild beasts will multiply against you. Instead, I will drive them out little by little before you, until you have grown numerous enough to take possession of the land." (exodus 23:27-31 confirming that he has a specific plan to invade, and confirming that this warfare is all about controlling the land)

Read the damn bible before saying "oh, they weren't the ones who attacked first! IT was the people who already lived there!" God had a specific, systematic and detailed plan to exterminate everyone living between (and I quote) "the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River". This is pure tribal warfare bullshit, and Yahweh was fully committed to any atrocity needed to get the job done. He is malevolent to anyone not already defined as his "Chosen People". There is no other interpretation here to a modern reader: the judeo-christian God is evil and a murderer. What you don't want to hear is what damns your entire religion.

It seems my version of the events clearly differs from yours, and I'm not here to argue the veracity of the sources.
My version led me to believe that God defended the Jews from slavery, then from aggression, so that the Jews would survive extinction. Your version has God punish the Egyptians whether or not the Pharaoh accepted to let them go free, and then sent divine killing weapons to clear the way for the Jews to their new home.

"God is testing us" and "God should not be tested" is the very definition of special pleading, you ignoramous. Read the damn book.

You keep saying that...

Anyway, it's not 'should', it's 'can'.
God has the power to test us. We cannot test God because we do not have the power to, or even a set of rules we can impose on God. If you find the distinction between God and humans to be special pleading, well, so be it. Unless your definition of God is different, in which this argument breaks down.

Irrelevant. Death is suffering, and that which makes us suffer is evil. Any "meaning" does not diminish that fact. This is very simple, try to get it through your thick skull.

My thick skull is telling me that someone doesn't want to discuss the 'Death is suffering', 'Suffering is evil' and 'To create suffering is evil' statements. You accuse me of being a blind believer. I guess holding onto those three statements without providing an argument for them is the very definition of a blind believer.

I happen to be very phiboc around needles. So yeah, its mundane but its still true.

Ouch. Owee. Needles. I must use God's power to remove this pain from existence!

But from a religious perspective, necessary evils only exist because... god lets them exist. Because he can't change them? Because he doesn't know about it? Because he's a sadistic mass murdering psychopath? Take your pick. Epicuris' point is, by the conventional definition of God you can't have all three. The only other alternative I can think of is if he's just some mindless force like fate that really shouldn't need worship.

Yes.
God is the ultimate origin of the pain you feel during a flu shot. If you cannot get past the temporary nervous sensation, and remain fixated on the sole existence of pain, and the world is a horrible place, and humans die all the time, and there's so much pain from scratched knees and hot coffee, and why does not God just go ahead and recreate Heaven on Earth so that you can be happy and there is no need to judge anyone over anything?

For any other argument for the existence of a harsh life on Earth, read previous posts.

We have physical pain; pain that affects out body and might kill us. Things such as genetic diseases, epidemics, natural disasters, even the famines are entirely God's doing.

Torture: deliberately causing and prolonging pain for the sake of pain.
Nature and the laws of physics as created by God: Deal with it.

I don't think you want to understand the reason for a test to include hardship and pain.

Then he is not all powerful: or else, not all loving.

All powerful, can stop pain, won't because it is needed. All loving, because we are his creations, but still needs to test us, so won't stop the pain.

I mean, unless you're one of those activists that want to ban slapping children because it's physical trauma that will turn them into violent psychopaths.

Only if he created evil; or spread evil. Or refuses to work against evil. I'd judge him the same way anyone would judge a human being-- including god himself.

Feeling all high and mighty, trying to judge God and all using rules made for limited creatures like us? Also, you cannot disbelieve in God and try and blame him for evil at the same time.

It can be demonstrated that this is a palefaced lie.

It can be demonstrated that my face is not pale.

All societies have morality. Not all societies believe in the same god, or even believe in A god. Bhuddists for instance have no official god they worship, and those that do venerate divine beings attribute morality to the impresonal cosmic forces of Karma and Darhma, not to a god. Humanists have the demonstrably strongest position of all: humans created morality. What morals do dogs have? Or bacteria? Or rocks? Or stars? None. Philosophers as far back as Aristotle and-- hey!-- Epicurus all observed this fact. Religious types ignored it, even as the Church decided to adopt pseudo-Aristotelian ethics. Oh the irony.

Ironic indeed, when we consider that Christians say that all humans are made in the image of God, and therefore have a part of them that is Just and Good, and will naturally push them to follow divine laws if it weren't for the interference of our Dark side? I mean, before the Word of God, we had humans create the wonderful morality that governed Sodom and Gomorrah.
Isn't that how they justify that they are the One True Religion and everything else is heathen bullcrap?

But you are christian, I am to assume. It actually doesn't make much of a difference in my experience. The alternatives all read from the same book, and those prodestant sects which believe that the few who will be saved have already been chosen can kiss my ass.

And kiss their ass they will.

They have the weakest position of them all as far as morality is concerned. For if I am already going to hell, why should I give a damn what their god tells me to do? There is nothing I can do to change his opinion of me, and hell will almost certainly fill up with people I like. I'll take the good company over the dogmatic assholes any day.

Given up already? Was it too difficult to just believe that the world was created this way instead of that way, and to then follow the Law you would have followed anyways to fit into society? I guess your good company is waiting for you then.

Fuck you. I am calm. I can take as much time as I want to type this, in total calm, finding the words that describe my feelings towards your stupid religion in precicely as crass a manner as I like.

Your fuck is being processed. You are welcome to insult the religion you suppose I have again!

Its not a face to face conversation, its text. You are obviously unaware that on this forum, I can call you out as the irritating insensitive self absorbed prick I think you would have to be to call a lifelong handicap a "test from god". This place isn't your youth group. Deal with it.

I had a youth group? Thanks for telling me. I guess I'll go and tell my neighbor that someone was very angry on the internet about having epilepsy and ADHD, and how he hated God and everything for making it this way, all while I feed the guy with a spoon.

You talk about how maybe the test is to "recognize thinking that our pain is greater than those of others and so on..." but the fact is that you don't have to live with a true handicap like the ones I do, and have probably never voiced this crap to someone who does before. You don't realize how obnoxious it is to have someone diminish the actual problem that represents because you have never lived that way. I will make you eat your own words on this one.

Assumptions, assumptions. Imagine I was the guy upstairs, typing with his tongue-brush? Any why in the world would considering a handicap a test from god instead of a random anomaly of Nature considered diminishing it? If anything, I'm giving it divine value to respect it.

As for words... nom nom nom. Alphabet soup.

Its hilarious to watch someone try in vain to pull off the armchair psychobabble routine when all I asked was a simple question: if God created suffering to be some sort of test, why is it that some must suffer more or differently than others? And why would some recieve tests that plainly demonstrate to them that there is no soul, or no god? The first is a simple problem of the test's validity. The second is a problem with the very factual foundation of the argument. That is why I brought up my personal maladies. That, and to highlight your arrogance.

Arrogance is being highlighted here. Mine? Maybe.

You question has been answered several times, if you bothered to read before... starting to highlight arrogance.

And around here, not answering valid questions or arguments like these is worse than calling someone a jackass, jackass.

What is not reading considered then? Is it like, less serious?

If he is the all powerful creator he is stated to be, he could make everyone be born the same way and live under the same circumstances. That's the point of the Epicurean argument, idiot. He didn't have to create the Earth at all if ultimately, the only place completely devoid of suffering is Heaven. That's the point in asking what the hell IS god (aka the Ignostic argument). Now its becoming obvious that you are just repeating religious dogma to yourself until the-- hehehehe-- the people around you stop testing your beliefs.

My beliefs are not being tested here, and I dislike the way you're trying to turn this into a personal argument with the fictional version you have of me.
Here's something I came up with: People are tested differently so that you cannot copy someone else's life and actions, then protest about getting a different judgement. Accountability, Maybe ?

premise: if my conscious experience is a physical process emergent of my brain, then disruptions of my brain's usual processes would necessarily entail a disruption of my conscious experience.

observation: when I experience a full siezure, I lose consciousness

observation 2: during a siezure, my brain's synapses are firing in such a manner (that is, all synapses firing in unison rather than their normal patterns) as to completely disrupt normal brain functions

Conclusion: because my consciousness does not continue under abnormal conditions linked directly to my brain's functioning, my consious awareness is a function of my brain.

All is fine until you reached the conclusion.
'consciousness linked to the brain'='consciousness is the brain' is not a logical step you can make.

The alternative hypothesis is that my counsious awareness is the product of a soul; this is based on the judeo-christian idea that the soul is a means of continuing conscious awareness after the death of the brain in an afterlife. However, I cannot even generate a proper method of testing that idea against the hypothesis that my brain generates my conscious awareness. Indeed, the two hypothesis are inconsistent with one another, and I have evidence for the former (materialistic explanation of Consciousness). Therefore, I have no reason to believe in the existence of the soul, despite what my religion told me.

They are not inconsistent when you can assume that other factors exist between the 'consciousness linked to the brain' step and the 'consciousness is the brain' conclusion.

My own little theory is that we can use a CPU/hard-drive analogy for this, based on Christian assumptions. My own are different.
The brain is the CPU. We think with it, create consciousness, but it is biological, faulty and imperfect. The onboard memory is limited too. The soul is the hard-drive. We do not think using a hard-drive, only store information on it.
When we die, the CPU and living memory dissapear. The magical hard-drive remains, having recorded our thoughts and actions.

Welcome to scientific skepticism 101. Class dismissed.

You were trying to teach me scientific skepticism by not telling me something new and disregarding scientific method? Uh, okay.

Strawman fallacy. You are misrepresenting step 2, and adding a conclusion to the end that I never reached or implied.

Only normal, I was the one making it, not you. You didn't imply it too, but you didn't give me a reason not to kill without a God existing to judge your actions, so I just followed with the logical consequence. Also, I think you are misinformed about why God does not allow us to kill.
He doesn't allow us to kill because the lives around us are not our to take. We didn't create them, we can't kill them.

Also, there is no mention anywhere that God thinks that death is suffering. Are the dead hurting? The process of dying usually hurts, sometimes doesn't. All is left is the fear of death, and you are trying to find excuses as to why we fear death, not why we shouldn't kill.

My reasoning is, death is suffering -> god commands others NOT to kill, showing that he knows death is suffering to mortals -> god kills and tells Jews to kill anyway, and feels that this is somehow fine because He did it or commanded it -> this is an inconsistency with the first two premises -> god is thus a murderer and a hypocrite.

Heaven never entered into it, because I have evidence against the existence of the soul. And I start by saying I *agree* with the commandment against killing.

The Jews being told to kill, except when killing is not allowed, is a question dealt with earlier.

Here's a more appropriate question:
Why do you agree with not killing?

Oh, so you don't understand the first thing about mental illness. Hint: it isn't the same thing as physical/mental retardation. That's just one form of it. Someone with OCD or ADHD or autism are all mentally ill (that's the polite term for it, BTW, not "mental sickness") yet all are capable of responsibility to some degree or another. Jackass.

Then He will judge you over actions you can be held responsible for doing, and will not judge you when your thinking is impaired or when you are influenced by your... 'illness'. Unless God isn't powerful enough to know the difference.

And what's the difference between 'illness' and 'sickness'? English is such a strange language.

He is the Creator. He is responsible for all his creations. I think it even says so in the bible. Idiot.

He is responsible then for latest school shooting. I guess we should imprison God then.

The rest of your posts seem incapable of understand a simple observation: that suffering is an evil thing, therefor God is evil for causing (indeed, Creating) suffering. It all boils down to that. Also, you should have lurked more here, because when the board motto includes the phrase "mockery of stupid people" that should have been your hint that we aren't obliged to be polite.

All your posts seem incapable of understanding a simple fact: that 'suffering is an evil thing' is not an observation, but a personal judgement, and God is ultimately evil for causing evil only if you consider Hiram Maxim responsible for all the deaths by gunfire in both World Wars because he invented the machine gun. Those types of cause and effect are stupid.

And I never lurked on SDN, so I don't know about how the basic quality of human conversation that is politeness is proudly trodden upon.

[krakonfour]

There is no punishment in stopping bullets. God could, if omnipotent, simply stop any bullet that would kill someone, with no further action taken. No one punished, no one's free will removed, only suffering prevented. He does not. Either he's not omnipotent, does not exist, or does not care to prevent suffering and death with no other consequence.

God does not stop bullets because he can't (a) or doesn't want to (b).

If (a), the God is not omnipotent, and the Christian definition of God fails.
If (b), there must be a reason.
I'm tired. I don't want to re-write my whole argument on why Earth was created with suffering and it is a necessary part of God's test. Go read it somewhere.

[Edited]

[Terralthra]

Please learn to nested quote. You have attributed to me words that are not mine.

[krakonfour]

Please learn to nested quote. You have attributed to me words that are not mine.

I know how to nest quotes. I made a mistake and removed

. I have made dozens of nested quotes on this very thread and it is the first mistake I do.
A more polite way of asking me to rectify my mistake is to ask 'please nest the quote' instead of implying that I do not know how to do so.

Unless you have the other guy's attitude towards politeness.

[General Zod]

There is no punishment in stopping bullets. God could, if omnipotent, simply stop any bullet that would kill someone, with no further action taken. No one punished, no one's free will removed, only suffering prevented. He does not. Either he's not omnipotent, does not exist, or does not care to prevent suffering and death with no other consequence.

God does not stop bullets because he can't (a) or doesn't want to (b).

If (a), the God is not omnipotent, and the Christian definition of God fails.
If (b), there must be a reason.
I'm tired. I don't want to re-write my whole argument on why Earth was created with suffering and it is a necessary part of God's test. Go read it somewhere.

[Edited]

Why can't the reason be "God is a malevolent sociopath"?

[krakonfour]

Why can't the reason be "God is a malevolent sociopath"?

If you want it to be that way so badly, no-one is stopping you from thinking it.
Now, if you're going to try and convince me that it has any semblance to the truth, I invite you to lay out your arguments.

[Metahive]

If you want it to be that way so badly, no-one is stopping you from thinking it.
Now, if you're going to try and convince me that it has any semblance to the truth, I invite you to lay out your arguments.

The truth? As in you have met God in person and correctly assessed his character? I mean, how could you make such a statement otherwise? The writings containing the God-character for sure do paint him as a sociopathic character.

[General Zod]

Why can't the reason be "God is a malevolent sociopath"?

If you want it to be that way so badly, no-one is stopping you from thinking it.
Now, if you're going to try and convince me that it has any semblance to the truth, I invite you to lay out your arguments.

How about Job? God tells Satan that murdering his most devout follower's family as a test of his faith is totally fine because he needs his ego stroked. Most of us would consider someone who told another person to go ahead and kill someone's family a sociopath.

Besides which, that sort of behavior is completely at odds with the behavior of Jesus being tested by Satan. When it's Jesus being tested, he can't give into the devil's taunts. But when God is being tested by Satan . . . he can give into the devil's taunts because. uh. yeah.

[krakonfour]

The truth? As in you have met God in person and correctly assessed his character? I mean, how could you make such a statement otherwise? The writings containing the God-character for sure do paint him as a sociopathic character.

I needed to meet God in person to be convinced by his religion the same way you've met arithmetic in person to believe in them. God doesn't have a 'character' either, and all the 'he's evil' and 'he's a sociopath' comments are utter bullwash when you consider that you're labeling an entity on a completely different plane from us with human disorders.

Also, not all writings paint God the way you see it.

How about Job? God tells Satan that murdering his most devout follower's family as a test of his faith is totally fine because he needs his ego stroked. Most of us would consider someone who told another person to go ahead and kill someone's family a sociopath.

Besides which, that sort of behavior is completely at odds with the behavior of Jesus being tested by Satan. When it's Jesus being tested, he can't give into the devil's taunts. But when God is being tested by Satan . . . he can give into the devil's taunts because. uh. yeah.

Who's this Job guy? Yet another scripture? I've never heard of God and Satan dealing this way, and by definition Satan never took orders from God, so there's no way God told Satan to go and kill or do whatever.

It's like every time you need to counter my arguments, you bring up material I never heard of before. Can someone PLEASE work with the premises I made my conclusions upon instead of rushing outside of the frame of reference to get one or the other zillion quotes written by a bunch of people I never heard of.