Religious arguments and analogies that really bother you

[Learner]

This would be the God that destroyed the entire world with the Global Flood, right? Every man, woman, child, infant, fetus, blastocyst, except 8, for unspecified 'wickedness?' And two pair of every creature, except for the ones that were appropriate for blood sacrifices. They were saved by 7 pairs. Because he loves his creation, and he savors the smell of his creation being burnt on the altar...

Anyway, you seem comfortable with your worship of an angry, evil non-pagan god, huh?

Well my take is that the book of Enoch should be included again with the rest of the bible which is slowly becoming popular again like the churches in the east . The civilizations all over the world with those amazing structures and varying gods that required "human sacrifices" were the nephilim , children of the sons of God as according to the scripture which fits well. Non of these were Gods creation. These were the abominations, the non pure humans during Noahs time. Unfortunately the corrupt humans that went and mingled with them were also killed.

There are better explanations by various people on you tube.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well my take is that the book of Enoch should be included again with the rest of the bible which is slowly becoming popular again like the churches in the east . The civilizations all over the world with those amazing structures and varying gods that required "human sacrifices" were the nephilim , children of the sons of God as according to the scripture which fits well. Non of these were Gods creation. These were the abominations, the non pure humans during Noahs time. Unfortunately the corrupt humans that went and mingled with them were also killed.

Wow.
So I was saying, somewhere, it's hilarious the extent some will bend over backwards to invent a justification, to change their favorite book's meaning from what it actually says to a more comfortable fanfiction. Pull non-canon books in, ignore the canon, claim an increase in popularity as if that's a way of winning an argument...

You still have an angry, vile, evil god destroying the world, NOT showing love for his creation. HIs creation drowned right alongside these Nephilim. Except for the ones that survived RIGHT up to the sacrifices...

 

[bigfield]

Thats the bible how ever way you phrase it.

Very often we desperately want to be right and hold on to certain beliefs, despite any evidence presented to the contrary. As a result, we begin to make up excuses as to why our belief could still be true, and is still true, despite the fact that we have no real evidence for what we are making up.

The logical fallacy here is you have confused a believer with one that sounds unsure of what he believes as you put it; "desperately wants to hold on to the belief and be right" whilst making excuses.

That doesn't matter, because whether you doubt your beliefs or not, your argument is still an obvious ad hoc defence.

The problem you face when improvising arguments on the run is that you end up with logical contradictions. A god that is unable to end all suffering without destroying the Earth cannot be omnipotent, because an omnipotent god would not have that problem, by virtue of being all-powerful.

Only my suggested "what if" theory maybe wrong but thats to be expected in instant discussions. At least its not God of the bible thats in contradiction here.

The Problem of Evil has been around for longer than Christianity. Every Christian apologist to ever opine on the subject has failed to offer anything but shitty sophistry in response, trying the defend a belief that is internally inconsistent.

The problem with the "problem of evil" is; They have made such a biiiiiiiig useless philosophy about it and unecessary expanded beyond the mental vocabulary of sane beings to be seriously interesting. No wonder everyones confused. I say its easier to just say evil is simply an extreme end of selfish and self-gratification in intelligent beings.

The problem of evil is simple.

1. If an omnipotent, all-loving god exists then that god would eradicate all evil
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, all-loving god does not exist.

It doesn't matter how you redefine evil, the problem remains.

Your argument, that there might be something preventing god from eradicating evil without destroying the Earth, is incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful god, which would not face such a limitation due to being all-powerful.

So what do you believe?

Do you believe in an all-powerful, all-loving god, or do you believe in a less-powerful god that lacks the means to eradicate evil without destroying this world?

 

[Kharakov]

The problem of evil is simple.

1. If an omnipotent, all-loving god exists then that god would eradicate all evil
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, all-loving god does not exist.

God loves evil, and will use any excuse available to subject you to evil experiences, because... dun dun dun dun... they can get away with it. Who you gonna ask for help? Someone who can hide all evidence of evil from others, and even erase your memories? Shuffle off this mortal coil- no memories, you're in the blissful afterlife. And what?

So, lets say God wants to confide in someone, that they really, reallllly like being evil. That they totally get off on it. And they tell you. You're their first creation. Whadayado?

Say you're part of a select group in the afterlife that knows God is evil. Like knows knows. Who does God love more... the blissful ones, or you?

Yup- God loves all. God's just more than a little bit evil. Don't call them on it- they'll fuck you up to make a point.

The problem with evil? It's not a problem to God.

 

[Learner]

Wow.
So I was saying, somewhere, it's hilarious the extent some will bend over backwards to invent a justification, to change their favorite book's meaning from what it actually says to a more comfortable fanfiction. Pull non-canon books in, ignore the canon, claim an increase in popularity as if that's a way of winning an argument...

You still have an angry, vile, evil god destroying the world, NOT showing love for his creation. HIs creation drowned right alongside these Nephilim. Except for the ones that survived RIGHT up to the sacrifices...

You do know the canon bible quotes Enoch in both the OT and NT, especially Jesus himself, James and Jude giving this at least some validation? True according the bible not all were destroyed in the flood. Winning an argument hmm ...w..w..why can't we win for a change?

(brb)

 

[Keith&Co.]

You do know the canon bible quotes Enoch in both the OT and NT, especially Jesus himself, James and Jude giving this at least some validation?

And yet, the book itself is not part of the canon, is it?
So the parts you're trying to use to support your interpretation are not found in the approved bible, you're forced to use non-canon literature.
Which, I suppose, is at least a step above just making-shit-up. But not far above.

True according the bible

Oh, NOW you want to use the actual canon?
Make up your mind...

 

[James Brown]

There are a large number of written works mentioned or alluded to in the Bible.

 Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

As for the Book of Enoch, Learner has greatly exaggerated. The New Testament book of Jude quotes one small passage from it. The Book of Enoch is not quoted in all the Old Testament, nor does James or Jesus quote from it. There occur several occurrences of the character Enoch's name in Genesis, 1 Chronicles, Luke, and Hebrews, but that's not the same thing.

Scholars date the oldest sections of the Book of Enoch to 300 BCE, so it certainly wasn't written by the Enoch found in Genesis (father of Methusaleh). Therefore any genealogical listing of Enoch's name (such as what we see in 1 Chronicles and Luke) is irrelevant to the reliability of the text.

 

[Lion IRC]

There's huge evil in the world. God puts an end to it with a global flood.

Isn't that what God is supposed to do? You'd think the atheist would give God some credit here for doing something about the (so-called) 'problem' of evil.

But no. They want God to come back and do it again and again.
For every act of evil (sin) they expect God to do something.
They even want God to PREVENT it before it happens, like that movie Minority Report. (Pre crime)

Note that the atheist, of course, expects God to let humans decide what is and isn't evil.

Funny how the atheist accuses Christians of anthropomorphising God, then they proceed to lecture Christians about how God's action and inaction makes no sense to them because God isn't doing what they think God ought to do.

 

[Lion IRC]

Show yourself or I won't believe.
Prove you're God first - you obey me first - then I'll decide whether to obey you.
Fix all the bad stuff - but let me decide what's bad.

This is the only type of 'god' atheists would accept.

View attachment 9456

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There's huge evil in the world. God puts an end to it with a global flood.

Isn't that what God is supposed to do? You'd think the atheist would give God some credit here for doing something about the (so-called) 'problem' of evil.

But no. They want God to come back and do it again and again.
For every act of evil (sin) they expect God to do something.
They even want God to PREVENT it before it happens, like that movie Minority Report. (Pre crime)

Note that the atheist, of course, expects God to let humans decide what is and isn't evil.

Funny how the atheist accuses Christians of anthropomorphising God, then they proceed to lecture Christians about how God's action and inaction makes no sense to them because God isn't doing what they think God ought to do.

Well, that's like saying "There are millions of termites in my house, so I should burn it down to get rid of them" as opposed to "There is one termite in my house, so I should deal with this proactively before more show up and they become a serious issue". If you know that you'll be burning your house down if it becomes infested by millions of termites and don't take any action to deal with them before they get to that point, then it's your fault that you don't have a house anymore.

And yes, we would like God to come back and do it again and again and again. That's because he has infinite power and dealing with a problem billions of times requires no more expenditure of his energy than dealing with it once would. He also doesn't need to do it for every sin - for instance, if I stop by a strip club for a beer on the way home from work, the man shouldn't feel the need to pop by and bother me. However, if I decide to knife one of the strippers for over counting the dances she gives me, I could probably use a talking to. Maybe if he just limited himself to stepping in when children are being raped and murdered then we wouldn't wondering why you're saying that the guy who sits there and watches children getting raped instead of taking some insignificantly trivial amount of action to stop it is the guy we should be having decide what is or is not evil.

 

[Lion IRC]

"the abortion industry."

As if anyone makes money off of it....

Oh. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
Maybe abortions are free.
Maybe abortion clinic employees don't have home mortgages to pay off or electricity bills.

Maybe the abortion industry is doing it all for charity.

...like the Churches which fund and operate orphanages soup kitchens and homeless shelters and refuges for single mothers.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There's huge evil in the world. God puts an end to it with a global flood.

Isn't that what God is supposed to do? You'd think the atheist would give God some credit here for doing something about the (so-called) 'problem' of evil.

But no. They want God to come back and do it again and again.
For every act of evil (sin) they expect God to do something.
They even want God to PREVENT it before it happens, like that movie Minority Report. (Pre crime)

Note that the atheist, of course, expects God to let humans decide what is and isn't evil.

Funny how the atheist accuses Christians of anthropomorphising God, then they proceed to lecture Christians about how God's action and inaction makes no sense to them because God isn't doing what they think God ought to do.

God is said to enjoy a good moral nature and free will and never does moral evil, following his own free will. Why did not God give mankind a god-like good nature and a god-like free will?
So, man is evil because of this thing called original sin. So why does not God on day one, eliminate original sin by fiat? Knowing full well it strips us of our free will and causes moral evil.

Nah. This bible god critter theory is full of logical holes and nonsense.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Show yourself or I won't believe.
Prove you're God first - you obey me first - then I'll decide whether to obey you.
Fix all the bad stuff - but let me decide what's bad.

This is the only type of 'god' atheists would accept.

So, do yo accept the Bible God and Jesus and sell all you have an give to the poor, or the Islamic Allah and fight the Christians and pagans until they surrender and become Moslems or pay the jizyah tax? Perhaps another God, Mormon, or voodoo gods?

Everybody paws at us atheists about their god, why shouldn't we demand hard evidence?

 

[blastula]

Show yourself or I won't believe.
Prove you're God first - you obey me first - then I'll decide whether to obey you.
Fix all the bad stuff - but let me decide what's bad.

There's noting wrong with any of those statements. The first two are merely rational due diligence, and the third is rational expectation of a triomni being. Though the last phrase is tautological. All anybody can do is determine for themselves what they believe is bad. Same for any theist.

 

[bigfield]

There's huge evil in the world. God puts an end to it with a global flood.

Your god clearly hasn't put an end to evil, because there is still evil.

Isn't that what God is supposed to do? You'd think the atheist would give God some credit here for doing something about the (so-called) 'problem' of evil.

But no. They want God to come back and do it again and again.
For every act of evil (sin) they expect God to do something.
They even want God to PREVENT it before it happens, like that movie Minority Report. (Pre crime)

An all-powerful god could just alter the universe so that evil cannot occur, or even better, could have created the universe without evil in the first place.

Note that the atheist, of course, expects God to let humans decide what is and isn't evil.

Every definition of evil is a product of humans, including those definitions that humans claim to be from God.

This is another silly red herring from Christian apologetics: Humans can't define what is evil, therefore there is no evidence of evil, therefore the apologist doesn't need to deal with the fact that there is evil in the world and God hasn't eradicated it.

Funny how the atheist accuses Christians of anthropomorphising God, then they proceed to lecture Christians about how God's action and inaction makes no sense to them because God isn't doing what they think God ought to do.

The Biblical god can poof over 300 sextillion stars into existence in a day but in order to eradicate some humans he chooses to drown them with a global flood that causes huge collateral damage. And the flood doesn't actually succeed in eliminating evil

The Biblical god is an anthropomorphic character, with feelings and other human flaws, therefore it makes perfect sense to refer to it as a person.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Bible, supposedly a revelation from God, repeatedly defines good and evil. This idea than we mere human atheists define good and evil ignores the fact we can see what this revelation claims is good and evil, and how this God of revelation falls short.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There's huge evil in the world. God puts an end to it with a global flood.

But for one thing, Learner said that's what an evil god would do.
And for another, Biblegod failed to put an end to evil, didn't he? That's what it says in Genesis, that God realized the whole flood was a big waste of time and did not end man's wickedity.

You'd think the atheist would give God some credit here for doing something about the (so-called) 'problem' of evil.

Only if this putative atheist didn't read Genesis to see how the Flood story ends.
So your premise is beyond faulty.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's huge evil in the world. God puts an end to it with a global flood.

Isn't that what God is supposed to do? You'd think the atheist would give God some credit here for doing something about the (so-called) 'problem' of evil.

But no. They want God to come back and do it again and again.
For every act of evil (sin) they expect God to do something.
They even want God to PREVENT it before it happens, like that movie Minority Report. (Pre crime)

Note that the atheist, of course, expects God to let humans decide what is and isn't evil.

Funny how the atheist accuses Christians of anthropomorphising God, then they proceed to lecture Christians about how God's action and inaction makes no sense to them because God isn't doing what they think God ought to do.

We're talking about an omnipotent agent. Don't you think there would have been a solution that spared the good people?

There's also the issue of social pressure. People tend to do bad things because they live in a society where they have to to survive. Don't you think God could have fixed that instead? I'm not an essentialist. I don't believe people are above redemption. As I believe is a pretty damn central tenet to Christianity. I can think of plenty of scenarios that didn't include genocide.

BTW, the Noah/Utnapishtim story is very early. And comes from a time when Jews didn't believe that God was omnipotent. Nor that God was good. That's the explanation. The God that gave rise to the flood is a completely different type of God than which modern Christians believe in. But it's always fun to see Christians squirm while they try to justify this horrendous act.

 

[DrZoidberg]

"the abortion industry."

As if anyone makes money off of it....

Oh. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
Maybe abortions are free.
Maybe abortion clinic employees don't have home mortgages to pay off or electricity bills.

Maybe the abortion industry is doing it all for charity.

...like the Churches which fund and operate orphanages soup kitchens and homeless shelters and refuges for single mothers.

USAs biggest abortion organisation is Planned Parenthood. It's a non-profit, a charity. It was set up to protect women from evil Christians. True fact!

 

[bigfield]

Another irritating tactic: Muslims who claim that the Qu'ran is the Word of God but play fast-and-loose with the interpretation of those words.

Apparently the Islamic god is a very misunderstood being. You would think an all-powerful god would have chosen its words better, no?