Religious arguments and analogies that really bother you

[DrZoidberg]

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?

But that's not incorrect. The Quran is written in verse. Lots of words are chosen for their musical/poetic quality rather than precision. The Quran is wide open for all manner of interpretations. That's why the Sharia arose. But because the Quran just wasn't good enough.

 

[Learner]

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.

1. Still holds true to believers, it is just a matter of "when" as said in revelations.

2. For a time but is sorted in answer 1.

3. Therefore He is a loving God

Yes evil remains but the "potential to do evil" is ""within us all" as part of the make up in humans. Who amongst our members of the forum can you say is really evil? If you say none then we are all doing good by our own wills ..the free will. God would know this and be pleased. The example that I say in limited understanding ,perhaps this is the difficult bit in all this; evil can only exist with freewill.

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?

I don't know about that. How even by the method to destroy the world do you equate and compare with "what else" is out there or "who else" is out there giving the false conclusion of what you think should be all powerful or not all powerful ?
Being only one God IS the ultimate entity.

 

[Learner]

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...

The Churches in Ethiopia thought this an importance and included it in their bible. The Appocryphia was also included in a lot of bibles in the western churches.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The Churches in Ethiopia thought this an importance and included it in their bible. The Appocryphia was also included in a lot of bibles in the western churches.

Learner, none of that matters.
You do not present new and interesting research into the authenticity of the gospel or the historicity of the contents, nor do you announce a sudden conversion to a congregation that holds the book to be holy, you grab it because it's convenient for supporting your worldview. And even then, you only want to grab at part of it.

 

[LordKiran]

What two suggested scenarios?
GOD allows millions to die.
GOD even kills by his own hand.
Why would GOD be upset about abortion when he's got so much blood on his hands?
Then you bring up humans and compassion and neighbors.

seems a non sequitur.

Man allows millions to die.
Man kills by his own hand.
Man is not upset with abortions.

I brought up 'humans and compassion and neighbors' as this is what God through Jesus of the bible advocates. The way for humans to BEHAVE against such suffering contrary to the notion that God allows this and that to happen. He told us so and there will be consequences.( by Christianity)

I've mentioned this already, but biblical texts ascribe Acedia as the sin of refusing to stop an act of evil if it is within your power to do so. How can god be perfect if he actively sins with his inaction?

 

[Treedbear]

The idea that God chooses to remain hidden and withhold proof of his existence in order to provide the opportunity for people to choose faith. The idea being that if there was irrefutable proof that he existed there would be no need for faith since there would be actual knowledge of the fact.

But this confuses the two uses of the word. We can have faith that something is true without having faith in something. The faith one has in something or someone is the kind that matters. The faith based on ignorance is simply an obstacle to the latter kind. But worse, conflating the two promotes a major ambiguity in the way we see the world and interact with other people. The first kind needs to become stronger in the face of contradictory evidence. The second becomes weaker. Thus the main difference between religion and science. It leads to the ability to suspend disbelief in any number of things out of convenience or conformity in the pursuit of dignity, stability, purpose, and meaning in one's life.

Another difference is that for something to be considered to be a scientific truth it must be falsifiiable. God is patently unfalsifiable, at least until one dies. But that's a logical tautology since its negation is unsatisfiable. All other beliefs we might have about the world are in principle falsifiable.

 

[JCS60]

I have 2 that bug me.

1) You can't trust science because it's the word of man, man is flawed and can't be trusted since science is mans invention it's untrustworthy. Ah... who told them about god?

2) Freewill. Apparently you have free will to do harm to others but those being harmed don't have freewill to not be harmed.

 

[Malintent]

You can't trust science because it's the word of man, man is flawed and can't be trusted..

oops.. had to stop reading there.. your words being untrustworthy, and all =p

Freewill. Apparently you have free will to do harm to others but those being harmed don't have freewill to not be harmed.

I don't believe in free will either...

 

[Rayschism]

The ones I absolutely hate the most are:

Hitler/Stalin was an atheist who killed millions of people so all atheists don't value life and will kill millions of people.

You can't know morality without God.

atheists are tyrants who never allow Christians to worship as they please and oppress Christians everywhere and never allow Christians freedom of speech.

All of which are outright proven lies.

 

[remez]

The ones I absolutely hate the most are:

Hitler/Stalin was an atheist who killed millions of people so all atheists don't value life and will kill millions of people.

You can't know morality without God.

atheists are tyrants who never allow Christians to worship as they please and oppress Christians everywhere and never allow Christians freedom of speech.

All of which are outright proven lies.

Concerning Hitler/Stalin...... I have heard this topic referenced, but not in any fashion as an argument. Can you show me where such an argument was presented? Or were you just making it up?

Concerning morality.... again show me a Christian argument that makes such a claim.

Concerning atheistic tyrants...... again show me where a Christian has made an argument to that extreme.

Until you can provide such evidence the lies seem to be your misrepresentations of the Christian position.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Concerning Hitler/Stalin...... I have heard this topic referenced, but not in any fashion as an argument. Can you show me where such an argument was presented? Or were you just making it up?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

It's the last third of Bill Stein's Creationism movie where he uses this argument.
Concerning morality.... again show me a Christian argument that makes such a claim. But seriously, did you even try googling it? It's a bizarrely common critique of atheism. It's bizarre because it's such a complete non-sequitur.

Concerning atheistic tyrants...... again show me where a Christian has made an argument to that extreme.

I believe that one is a spin on the hysterical conservatives in USA, who are in total denial about white Christian domination in that society. And they see any weakening of that dominantion as them being oppressed.

Until you can provide such evidence the lies seem to be your misrepresentations of the Christian position.

he's not claiming all Christians have this belief. He's claiming that it's something said more often than it should. Which is never. It should never be said.

 

[bigfield]

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.

1. Still holds true to believers, it is just a matter of "when" as said in revelations.

2. For a time but is sorted in answer 1.

3. Therefore He is a loving God

Do you believe in a "loving" god or an omnibenevolent god? The Problem of Evil is only concerned with the latter. If Christian doctrine held that Yahweh is a bit evil then there would be nothing to discuss.

 

[Sarpedon]

Also, one can be loving and still Evil.

Frankly, its absurd that so many people think the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[Rayschism]

The ones I absolutely hate the most are:

Hitler/Stalin was an atheist who killed millions of people so all atheists don't value life and will kill millions of people.

You can't know morality without God.

atheists are tyrants who never allow Christians to worship as they please and oppress Christians everywhere and never allow Christians freedom of speech.

All of which are outright proven lies.

Concerning Hitler/Stalin...... I have heard this topic referenced, but not in any fashion as an argument. Can you show me where such an argument was presented? Or were you just making it up?

Concerning morality.... again show me a Christian argument that makes such a claim.

Concerning atheistic tyrants...... again show me where a Christian has made an argument to that extreme.

Until you can provide such evidence the lies seem to be your misrepresentations of the Christian position.

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/the-atheist-atrocities-fallacy-hitler-stalin-pol-pot/

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/...atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2006/08/hitler-atheist/

 

[remez]

he's not claiming all Christians have this belief. He's claiming that it's something said more often than it should. Which is never. It should never be said.

I agree with you that those three statements are irrational positions for a Christian to hold. My contention was that I have never heard them used by Christians as actual arguments to reason those irrational conclusions. Go back and observe the stated conclusions.

Christians argue that all atheists devalue life and kill millions?

Atheists are tyrants who never allow Christians to worship? or freedom of speech?

Atheist don't know morality?


I don't know a Christian that actually believes any of those are true.

Remember the context was "arguments" that bother you.

Those were not even arguments. Observe.............

Concerning atheistic tyrants...... again show me where a Christian has made an argument to that extreme.

I believe that one is a spin on the hysterical conservatives in USA, who are in total denial about white Christian domination in that society. And they see any weakening of that dominantion as them being oppressed.

I again agree with you that was most likely spin, but as presented it was a straw man.
here........

It's the last third of Bill Stein's Creationism movie where he uses this argument.
Concerning morality.... again show me a Christian argument that makes such a claim. But seriously, did you even try googling it? It's a bizarrely common critique of atheism. It's bizarre because it's such a complete non-sequitur.

First of all Ben's film was a non-sequitur to the presented argument. The film primarily dealt with the issue of ID and academic freedom. The portion of the film addressing Nazism was directly linked to eugenics not Christianity.

But to your bizarrely common critique of atheism…..there is a connection. I know what you are trying to get at. Yes I have heard of the recitation of atheist atrocities cited by theists .................when countering the atheistic argument that religion poisons everything. Note it is not an argument to prove atheists devalue all life and desire to kill millions…..which was my contention. It is only a counter to the premise that only Christianity has that unique history, as argued by the atheists.

So to transform that counter into a Christian argument with that stated conclusion is a straw man. Again that was my contention.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I agree with you that those three statements are irrational positions for a Christian to hold. My contention was that I have never heard them used by Christians as actual arguments to reason those irrational conclusions. Go back and observe the stated conclusions.

Christians argue that all atheists devalue life and kill millions? .

Now you're the one that needs to reread.
There are christains online who will insist that Stalin and Hitler, as atheists, prove that atheists "WILL" kill millions, because we have no external sponsor for morality, so nothing stops the atheist from widespread murder.

 

[remez]

I agree with you that those three statements are irrational positions for a Christian to hold. My contention was that I have never heard them used by Christians as actual arguments to reason those irrational conclusions. Go back and observe the stated conclusions.

Christians argue that all atheists devalue life and kill millions?

Now you're the one that needs to reread.
There are christains online who will insist that Stalin and Hitler, as atheists, prove that atheists "WILL" kill millions, because we have no external sponsor for morality, so nothing stops the atheist from widespread murder.

Show me the argument. Please be specific. Clear premises and conclusion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Now you're the one that needs to reread.
There are christains online who will insist that Stalin and Hitler, as atheists, prove that atheists "WILL" kill millions, because we have no external sponsor for morality, so nothing stops the atheist from widespread murder.

Show me the argument. Please be specific. Clear premises and conclusion.

Just scroll back.
You're misquoting the point made in this very thread for the purpose of pretending the claim is something other than the one actually made, just so you can scoff.
Which makes it clear to me there's no actual point in surfing the web to find an example of the idiocy, as you'll just intentionally weasel out of that, too.

 

[bigfield]

The ones I absolutely hate the most are:

Hitler/Stalin was an atheist who killed millions of people so all atheists don't value life and will kill millions of people.

You can't know morality without God.

atheists are tyrants who never allow Christians to worship as they please and oppress Christians everywhere and never allow Christians freedom of speech.

All of which are outright proven lies.

Concerning Hitler/Stalin...... I have heard this topic referenced, but not in any fashion as an argument. Can you show me where such an argument was presented? Or were you just making it up?

Concerning morality.... again show me a Christian argument that makes such a claim.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/setting-the-record-straight.7787964/page-23#post-71073721



The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy is a form of the tu quoque fallacy. An atheist claims that religion leads to war and death, so the Christian retorts by claiming that atheism led to the atrocities committed by atheist states.

The macro above is clever enough to avoid implicating Nazi Germany, as Hitler was not an atheist and Nazi Germany was most definitely a Christian state.

Richard Sherlock does a thorough takedown of this fallacy here: https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordp...in-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/

 

[DrZoidberg]

Concerning Hitler/Stalin...... I have heard this topic referenced, but not in any fashion as an argument. Can you show me where such an argument was presented? Or were you just making it up?

Concerning morality.... again show me a Christian argument that makes such a claim.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/setting-the-record-straight.7787964/page-23#post-71073721

The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy is a form of the tu quoque fallacy. An atheist claims that religion leads to war and death, so the Christian retorts by claiming that atheism led to the atrocities committed by atheist states.

The macro above is clever enough to avoid implicating Nazi Germany, as Hitler was not an atheist and Nazi Germany was most definitely a Christian state.

Richard Sherlock does a thorough takedown of this fallacy here: https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordp...in-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/

I've never seen the claim that all atheists will kill millions of people; the argument just blames atheism for the deaths of millions.

And what killed people in USSR and China wasn't the atheism but the idiotic economic policies. You can have one without the other. Sweden is atheistic and our economic policies are doing just fine