God has nothing to do with the evil in the world.

[The Hammer]

How is keeping things simple egotistical?

Less the simplicity and more the self referencing.

2.
PHILOSOPHY
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
"solipsism is an idealist thesis because ‘Only my mind exists’ entails ‘Only minds exist’"

 

[Yerda]

The bad in the world is because people decide to do bad things and things like disease is nature not evil.

Couldn't God have made the world better than it is?

 

[1213]

If God created people, why did he equip them with the potential to do bad things?

Most if not all good things can be used for bad. For example, your ability to speak, you can praise God with it, or you can curse others. Should you be without ability to speak just because someone could use it for bad?

 

[Jimmy]

Couldn't God have made the world better than it is?

Couldn't God have made the world better than it is?

I doubt it.

 

[Jimmy]

Less the simplicity and more the self referencing.

2.
PHILOSOPHY
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
"solipsism is an idealist thesis because ‘Only my mind exists’ entails ‘Only minds exist’"

Self referencing? I don’t think so but ok.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Most if not all good things can be used for bad. For example, your ability to speak, you can praise God with it, or you can curse others. Should you be without ability to speak just because someone could use it for bad?

Wouldn’t that render ability speak neutral until tempered with intent?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The bad in the world is because people decide to do bad things

I'm going to give you a humanist perspective throughout this reply. For the humanist, whatever good people do is also because some people choose to do good.

God created nature

If that were true, then by humanist standards, God is also responsible for both the disease and human malice he created. I suspect that that is not the thinking in Christianity, where one begins with the assumption that though God is tri-omni, he is not responsible for any bad or harm. That forces the believer to either try to say that what appears harmful is actually a good thing, or that God isn't to blame. That's the problem with belief by faith when evidence contradicts that belief. One now has to argue to not believe one's lying eyes. You didn't see what you thought you did, you are told, because that's impossible, so there must be another explanation that finds God blameless.

I think God and all he made is good and Everything Man makes is 'bad'.

This is a teaching we see from the faithful that I think is destructive. It's also antithetical to humanism, which sees man as having great potential and being man's only benefactor. Abrahamic religions thrive because of a few destructive principles, this being one of them: Man is evil and all good comes from God. Another is that we are hopeless and utterly dependent on God's mercy. Another is that faith is good and the "wisdom of the world" foolish. There's an entire other way of thinking that sees potential in mankind and encourages humankind to be better intellectually and morally.

Oh I see, you think I'm god whipped.

I think by abusive relationship he was referring to something like what I just described. It's a dependent relationship with a huge imbalance of power, commands are given and must be obeyed or else, and where you're always wrong (evil was your word) and the god's always right

I’d like to believe god’s intentions were/are pure.

Why inject a god at all? None seem necessary for any purpose. Isn't nature sufficiently sacred even if its unconscious and godless? In a naturalistic worldview, nature is our sustainer, and though it can be harsh and dangerous, it is not malicious. As soon as one creates this persona with orders, separates it from nature, and declares it superior to nature, you have made nature and its contents including man this god's toy and passing idea.

I believe without god there would be nothing

Except God, right? And consciousness. Or do you think God created himself and created his own consciousness?

You have special rules for gods, but don't explain why they should have them. Nothing else can exist without a god but a god. There is no reason to believe that even if its correct. You couldn't know. Many believe anyway, but many others reject such special pleading for gods.

 

[Jimmy]

I'm going to give you a humanist perspective throughout this reply. For the humanist, whatever good people do is also because some people choose to do good.

If that were true, then by humanist standards, God is also responsible for both the disease and human malice he created. I suspect that that is not the thinking in Christianity, where one begins with the assumption that though God is tri-omni, he is not responsible for any bad or harm. That forces the believer to either try to say that what appears harmful is actually a good thing, or that God isn't to blame. That's the problem with belief by faith when evidence contradicts that belief. One now has to argue to not believe one's lying eyes. You didn't see what you thought you did, you are told, because that's impossible, so there must be another explanation that finds God blameless.


This is a teaching we see from the faithful that I think is destructive. It's also antithetical to humanism, which sees man as having great potential and being man's only benefactor. Abrahamic religions thrive because of a few destructive principles, this being one of them: Man is evil and all good comes from God. Another is that we are hopeless and utterly dependent on God's mercy. Another is that faith is good and the "wisdom of the world" foolish. There's an entire other way of thinking that sees potential in mankind and encourages humankind to be better intellectually and morally.

I think by abusive relationship he was referring to something like what I just described. It's a dependent relationship with a huge imbalance of power, commands are given and must be obeyed or else, and where you're always wrong (evil was your word) and the god's always right

Why inject a god at all? None seem necessary for any purpose. Isn't nature sufficiently sacred even if its unconscious and godless? In a naturalistic worldview, nature is our sustainer, and though it can be harsh and dangerous, it is not malicious. As soon as one creates this persona with orders, separates it from nature, and declares it superior to nature, you have made nature and its contents including man this god's toy and passing idea.

Except God, right? And consciousness. Or do you think God created himself and created his own consciousness?

You have special rules for gods, but don't explain why they should have them. Nothing else can exist without a god but a god. There is no reason to believe that even if its correct. You couldn't know. Many believe anyway, but many others reject such special pleading for gods.

If you read the whole thread you'll see why I believe what I believe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you read the whole thread you'll see why I believe what I believe.

You haven't addressed any of the points I made in this thread, and I'm not expecting you to, either. You don't engage in dialectic, which requires examining the other person's claim and explaining why it's wrong in your opinion if you think it is (rebuttal, counterargument, falsification), which is different from merely expressing dissent with or without what you believe instead added.

Look at that response from me again. Every word in it is a direct response to something you wrote that explains why I have a different opinion. In the first paragraph, I gave you an alternate understanding of good and bad that contradicted the one you posted. Then I explained why I considered a particular teaching destructive. Then I addressed your comment about abusive relationships. And so on. My response mirrors yours.

And look at your reply. The exact opposite. Zero acknowledgement that you read or understood anything written.

As I said, I expect this now and am used to it, and not just from you - from every poster unfamiliar with this method. Here's something I posted about two weeks ago:

"When two critical thinkers are debating - dialectic - they are applying the same standards of reasoning to the same evidence in a cooperative and constructive effort to arrive at correct ideas, kind of like a ping-pong volley between competent players - back and forth until a shot is made that cannot be returned (successfully rebutted). When one makes an argument that the other cannot rebut, the other recognizes that, accepts his collocutor's conclusion, and is grateful to have learned something. However, when only one critical thinker is involved, the other party generally just serves up a comment, has it returned (rebutted), and then watches the ball go past him ending the volley."

 

[Jimmy]

You haven't addressed any of the points I made in this thread, and I'm not expecting you to, either. You don't engage in dialectic, which requires examining the other person's claim and explaining why it's wrong in your opinion if you think it is (rebuttal, counterargument, falsification), which is different from merely expressing dissent with or without what you believe instead added.

Look at that response from me again. Every word in it is a direct response to something you wrote that explains why I have a different opinion. In the first paragraph, I gave you an alternate understanding of good and bad that contradicted the one you posted. Then I explained why I considered a particular teaching destructive. Then I addressed your comment about abusive relationships. And so on. My response mirrors yours.

And look at your reply. The exact opposite. Zero acknowledgement that you read or understood anything written.

As I said, I expect this now and am used to it, and not just from you - from every poster unfamiliar with this method. Here's something I posted about two weeks ago:

"When two critical thinkers are debating - dialectic - they are applying the same standards of reasoning to the same evidence in a cooperative and constructive effort to arrive at correct ideas, kind of like a ping-pong volley between competent players - back and forth until a shot is made that cannot be returned (successfully rebutted). When one makes an argument that the other cannot rebut, the other recognizes that, accepts his collocutor's conclusion, and is grateful to have learned something. However, when only one critical thinker is involved, the other party generally just serves up a comment, has it returned (rebutted), and then watches the ball go past him ending the volley."

You’ve rehashed the same things I addressed in this thread. It’s all there. Take a gander.

 

[syo]

Are you kidding??? Have you seen Kali????????

 

[Stevicus]

Are you kidding??? Have you seen Kali????????

I've seen California, which some people abbreviate as "Cali," though sometimes I've seen it spelled "Kali."

 

[Trailblazer]

If God created people, why did he equip them with the potential to do bad things?

If God created people, why did he equip them with the potential to do good things?

 

[Yerda]

I doubt it.

That's a depressing thought - this world as the best possible.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That's a depressing thought - this world as the best possible.

Or rather an optimistic thought

 

[We Never Know]

The bad in the world is because people decide to do bad things and things like disease is nature not evil.

Light and darkness
Hot and cold
Up and down
Good and evil
Yin and yang

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Light and darkness
Hot and cold
Up and down
Good and evil
Yin and yang

How are darkness, cold, down, evil, and yang related? How are light, hot, up, good, and yin related?

 

[We Never Know]

How are darkness, cold, down, evil, and yang related? How are light, hot, up, good, and yin related?

They are opposites of their counter part.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

They are opposites of their counter part.

Ok, I was just curious. So you could have listed Light in the same category as Yang? Or evil in the category of Yin?

 

[F1fan]

I’d like to believe god’s intentions were/are pure.

So God can intend good things, but things go afoul. How do things get out of whack despite God's intentions?