User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

General Discussion
If there was a God, he is EVIL

If there really was a God that created us, he (it) has to be the most evil thing that ever existed.

He creates living beings that are self-aware. He then gives us certain instincts that compels us to do certain things.

One instinct is the survival instinct which compels us to do whatever it takes to survive. Yet, this same "creator" made survival 100% impossible due to the fact that every living thing dies.

Nobody asks to be born, so we are forced to exist and try to survive even though it is futile to even try.

In addition, we are compelled by hunger to nourish ourselves. The only way to do that is to consume other living things. That means we must kill (plants or animals) against their own survival instinct, in order to try to survive ourselves. Yes, I do believe plants have a survival instinct. Plants try to grow towards sunlight, for example.

Another thing that we are compelled to do is have sex and make new self-aware beings (without them asking for it), so that they too are forced into the same situation of futile survival.

This whole system is really just torture. Here we are, given no choice but to either kill and try to survive another day or end up not existing anymore.

Also, the the "reward" for surviving is the slow deterioration of our bodies causing us pain, blindness, sickness and many other problems to deal with.

If God created life, he also created pain and suffering with diseases and old age. So if God really "loves" us, why did he create this endless cycle of pain, suffering and the futile desire to survive?

The only answer I can think of is that he ENJOYS making us struggle, which is sadistic, not loving.

Well the best answer would be, don't worry since there is no god there's nothing to be upset at.

There are a few other reasons why I replied though. Firstly its wonderful that you are alive (still I hope). Out of the millions and millions of babies that could have been born, you were. This may be because you were the strongest, or there may even be some luck (ideal circumstances for you) involved. Whatever it was, YOU were the one who survived.

It is true that we require other lifeforms to stay alive. Because even chemically made nutrients and other scientifically generated foods at least have plant life or microscopic cell life in them. But then again so do we. As disgusting as it may sound, we are literally full of living cells organisms that are not us, but without them we would most certainly die. These 'living' lifeforms do die extremely often and new ones are also born. All this inside of us, in a never ending balanced body we call us.

This is the life form you are. In some sense you are extremely privileged to be allowed this life, where MOST weren't. Let alone still borns or even child deaths. You should be thankful for your own life. You are able to see and be a part of the wonders of the world (and universe) in which you live, plus grow up and experience everything the world has to offer including love (not just sex!) and possibly having your own family one day. The joy felt with having your own children (or loved ones) ideally is not to be missed either, most would even give their entire life for this alone.

Pain and suffering is a part of life too. Think of this way, if it was all good all the way long, not only would it be boring but you'd never fully appreciate health and well being. Pain is just a way of our brain trying to tell us to act on something, ie Don't touch fire or it might hurt (and eventually kill you!) Or understand that all life is precious take care of it.

Age has its own benefits too. We can see things even more clearly, help others when we can, and build stronger connections with others and our surroundings. Many 'old' people don't want to be children again, but would love to have their own life over again. Because life is meaningful, and if you like it or not what you do affects others, even me writing in reply to you. It provides memories and experiences good and bad and everything in between. Its true to say that the majority of old age people pass away content that they lived a life worth living, and were happy and thankful for it. Knowing it was all worth it.

Its not sadistically cruel that we live. Its the best time ever, enjoy it whilst it lasts.

By the way, many people of our world commit suicide (or attempt it) when they feel there is just no hope any longer. They should seek professional help before doing anything critical (usually just a phone call to lifeline to begin with). Because I can tell you now that every life is worth living and fighting for, just wait and see. :)

There is a God. He created a very different world, but man screwed it up. In the Bible, it says that God gave to Adam and Eve the seed bearing fruits and the plants for meat. Plants are not alive. Throughout the Bible, the plants have been said to wither or fade. It never says they die. A car can die, but that doesn't mean it is alive to begin with. It wasn't until after Adam sinned that death entered the world. It's man that has screwed up this world, not God.

Is your god omniscient?

This is a very valid argument. However, it is based on an assumption which must be true for the argument to hold. That's the idea that humans have "free will." Without "free will," defective humans messing everything up must be the product of a defective creator who ought to have been perfect and omniscient. If, however, we accept the existence of"free will" and the necessity of the existence of "free will," then everything changes. Now humans can carry the blame for messing everything up.

For me, the question of free will is essentially the same as the question, "Can God create a boulder so big that He can't lift it?" If God is perfect and omniscient, He would have predicted that humans would mess everything up if given free will. How difficult is it for human parents to predict how their kids will behave if permitted to choose whether to have string beans or ice cream for dinner, or what time to go to bed? If God is perfect, infinite, and omnipotent, then He would have only created humans who have the necessary faculties to make the right decisions-- humans who are smart enough and wise enough and compassionate enough to always choose Good through their own volition.

Unless the decision for evil is a random one-- but if it's random, how can you blame the decision-maker? A random decision-making brain would be the creation of God, and any decisions that humans made using it would be beyond their volitional control.

So why did God create people who are inclined to choose sin? It's clear that certain types of people are consistently kind and moral, and other types of people are consistently violent, selfish, and immoral. Why didn't God make only this sort of "good" person? Why did he create foolish, selfish, nasty people and give the the freedom to do as they like?

Returning to the necessary axiom for this argument to hold, the popular notion of "free will" is just as logically problematic as God creating a boulder so big that He can't lift it-- or as the idea of a perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent God creating people who's intrinsic nature inclines them towards "freely" choosing to sin. Let's examine the nature of this "free will" more closely.

The popular theistic notion of free will isn't straightforwardly causal. It assumes that a person (say, Hitler) can be raised in an environment of violence and cruelty all their life, never have a role model for kindness or tenderness, be abused, injured, and unfairly treated since early childhood, and still MAGICALLY choose to be kind, compassionate, honest, and fair. People who embrace the popular theistic notion of "free will" consistently insist that this faculty permits one to transcend any and all causal conditioning in a manner that can only be described as intrinsically MAGICAL.

The idea of free will, then, is based on the assumption that we live in a universe where causality can be overridden, and must occasionally be overridden, by MAGIC. The alternative is "free will" based on causality-- a concept that theists almost universally reject.

An even bigger problem is the fact that recent scientific discoveries in neuroscience have already rendered the idea of "free will" out-dated and obsolete. Recent empirical, scientific evidence destroys the idea that the conscious, rational mind has unilateral, free, and absolute control over our decisions. Our consciousness, our sense of self, and our apparent volition are all built upon-- and grow out of-- unconscious, autonomic processes which are ultimately beyond our conscious "willful" control. Recent research has demonstrated that most of our decisions are made a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE we become consciously aware of them. If our conscious mind has any final decision-making power at all, it's only veto power, and the extent of this possible veto power is currently unclear.

Overall, this is too complex and technical an issue to describe and explain here, but you can look it up for yourself on the Internet. Google keywords like "free will," "neuroscience," and "research." Today, the notions of "non-causal free" and "decision-making carried out 100% by the conscious mind" are completely incompatible with the empirical scientific evidence.

From: JR (Posted Jan 18, 2014 at 11:24 am)

JR SAID: "There is a God. He created a very different world, but man screwed it up."

LINDA SAID: Why would God make a man (in His image) that was so imperfect that he screwed up the whole world? Maybe it's the way God made man. He blew on the dirt and made Him a man and then He took one of the man's ribs (because he ran out of dirt I guess?) and made Him a woman.

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that this story was primitive man trying to explain death. You have demythologized the story of Adam and Eve (the first man and woman) who wouldn't have died if they hadn't (sinned) and multiplied.

JR SAID: "Plants are not alive. Throughout the Bible, the plants have been said to wither or fade. It never says they die. A car can die, but that doesn't mean it is alive to begin with."

So, no death before the fall of Adam and Eve and plants aren't alive so plants couldn't die in the biblical sense. The idea that there originally was no death before the fall of Adam and Eve is Christian doctrine. God's creation was originally perfect, so, God couldn't have created it with death. Now, you have given us an excuse for plants they were never alive to begin with so they wouldn't die but how about biblical verses like this, "As for man, his days are like grass; As a flower of the field, so he flourishes. When the wind has passed over it, it is no more, And its place acknowledges it no longer. Psalms 103-16.

That verse sounds like man will die just like the grass dies. Animals die too, so, did the animals sin? How did they do that?

JR SAID: "It wasn't until after Adam sinned that death entered the world. It's man that has screwed up this world, not God."

LINDA SAID: The bible Genesis 2:17 God told Adam the punishment for his sin was death and that death would be passed on to all the other generations of mankind. Whoopdie-fucking-shit! We're all going to die! However, just to show you how screwed up the bible is to begin with it says in Deuteronomy 12:32 and Ezekiel 14:14-21 "no man can die for another man's sin."

Man screwed up the world with a mental illness, known as religion.

Andrew said,"If there really was a God that created us, he (it) has to be the most evil thing that ever existed. If God created life, he also created pain and suffering with diseases and old age."

One of the Buddha's most core and central teachings is the assertion that "Life is Suffering." Since Buddhism isn't theistic, or at least isn't monotheistic, no blame is embedded in that assertion. Pain is the core issue that we're discussing here-- the existence of pain. If pain (both physical and emotional) didn't exist, disease, death, hurricanes, nuclear wars... none of this would phase anyone in any way, and no morality would be involved. What's "bad" about being sick or dying is that IT HURTS.

So, why does pain exist. Atheists can explain the function that pain serves very easily. It's a very effective system and without it (as biological life happens to be configured on our planet at the moment) we wouldn't be here. Pain and pleasure work just fine-- but the methodology, the design, has such outrageous intrinsic flaws. The side effects of the mechanism are so overwhelmingly horrible that it seems that no sane conscious entity would have ever chosen this path to biological existence and evolutionary development. It's like a suspension bridge which has been designed to partially electrocute people who walk across it as an intrinsic function of it's design. Who in their right mind would have designed Life built upon the mechanism of PAIN?

Theory of Evolution explains why pain exists. There was nobody at the wheel. There was nobody who could stop and say, "Whoa, this might work in technical terms, but it's a really, really stupid approach! A new type of breath mind which freshens your breath but which causes you to projectile vomit for ten minutes each time you take it simply isn't a feasible solution. This is a BAD approach to the problem. Let's try another approach that doesn't include pain."

If, instead of considering the problem objectively, we axiomatically assume that a kind, loving, parental figure intentionally designed us the way we are, nothing makes sense. Why would someone CHOOSE pain as a means of creating life which will monitor itself and adapt to its environment? How could any kind, compassionate Being inflict the mechanism of pain on sentient creatures? In a very real sense, this is one of the red flags that atheists have picked up on in the process of questioning the foundations of the religion they were raised in.

Andrew said, "So if God really "loves" us, why did he create this endless cycle of pain, suffering and the futile desire to survive? The only answer I can think of is that he ENJOYS making us struggle, which is sadistic, not loving."

Alfredo replies, "I'm going to play devil's advocate here because it's the most illuminating thing that I can do if Truth is what you're really after. When a parent brings a two or three year old child to the doctor to get a polio vaccination, we understand perfectly what is going on in the parent's mind and in the doctor's mind. But what is happening from the perspective of the child, whose mental capacity if vastly more limited? When I was three and my mother held me down while a strange man thrust a long, pointy needle into my flesh, I screamed in horror, despair, and abject incredulity. If my mother really loves me, how could she do something like this? The only answer I could think of is that she ENJOYS making me suffer, "which is sadistic, not loving." The reasons why a loving parent might (quite genuinely and literally) torture a small child in that manner are beyond the intellectual capacity of the child. The fact that the child can't imagine any justifiable reason doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Is the argument presented in the above paragraph justification in belief in God. No, unequivocally no. Does it prove that God doesn't exist. Again, no. All the point illustrated in the paragraph above means is that you have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better argument.

From: Alfredo (Posted Mar 26, 2014 at 9:37 am) ALFREDO SAID: "ANDREW SAID,"If there really was a God that created us, he (it) has to be the most evil thing that ever existed. If God created life, he also created pain and suffering with diseases and old age.

ALFREDO SAID: "One of the Buddha's most core and central teachings is the assertion that "Life is Suffering." Since Buddhism isn't theistic, or at least isn't monotheistic, no blame is embedded in that assertion. Pain is the core issue that we're discussing here-- the existence of pain. If pain (both physical and emotional) didn't exist, disease, death, hurricanes, nuclear wars... none of this would phase anyone in any way, and no morality would be involved. What's "bad" about being sick or dying is that IT HURTS."

LINDA SAID: I can see why Alfredo wants to discuss Buddha's teachings that "Life is Suffering." and that "no blame is embedded in that assertion." That doesn't have anything to do with the Garden of Eden, which does put the blame on Eve and it blames her for Adam's sin. Why go on this long drawn out dissertation on why we have pain while overlooking the fact that supposedly before the fall in the Garden everything was perfect. It was a paradise where there was no death or suffering. That means death and suffering are a punishment and that's what ANDREW is referring to it.

If you want to go the scientific route, anyone who knows anything about science knows, it's a predator and prey system in nature that keeps everything in balance, and ensures the suffering and death of all creatures. Life on this planet evolved - it wasn't designed.

ALFREDO SAID: "So, why does pain exist. Atheists can explain the function that pain serves very easily. It's a very effective system and without it (as biological life happens to be configured on our planet at the moment) we wouldn't be here. Pain and pleasure work just fine-- but the methodology, the design, has such outrageous intrinsic flaws. The side effects of the mechanism are so overwhelmingly horrible that it seems that no sane conscious entity would have ever chosen this path to biological existence and evolutionary development. It's like a suspension bridge which has been designed to partially electrocute people who walk across it as an intrinsic function of it's design. Who in their right mind would have designed Life built upon the mechanism of PAIN?"

LINDA SAID: He made him a man that feels pain, "in His right mind or not"; it never happened. It was through a long process of evolution that mankind developed the capabilities that we have today. Pain is an adaptive trait and improves the survival of the species. The theory of Evolution explains why pain exists, but there was no supernatural being guiding evolution.

ALFREDO SAID: "Theory of Evolution explains why pain exists. There was nobody at the wheel. There was nobody who could stop and say, "Whoa, this might work in technical terms, but it's a really, really stupid approach! A new type of breath mind which freshens your breath but which causes you to projectile vomit for ten minutes each time you take it simply isn't a feasible solution. This is a BAD approach to the problem. Let's try another approach that doesn't include pain."

LINDA SAID: Too bad that isn't answering anything. There was nothing that could stop it and say "this might not work" and that's why many species (actually most) died out because they were too defective to live.

ALFREDO SAID: "If, instead of considering the problem objectively, we axiomatically assume that a kind, loving, parental figure intentionally designed us the way we are, nothing makes sense. Why would someone CHOOSE pain as a means of creating life which will monitor itself and adapt to its environment? How could any kind, compassionate Being inflict the mechanism of pain on sentient creatures? In a very real sense, this is one of the red flags that atheists have picked up on in the process of questioning the foundations of the religion they were raised in."

LINDA SAID: Many atheists were never religious and it's not the only red flag it's just another one. There are many things being taught to people on behalf of religion that are provably false. Theology has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution. An unnatural agent performing an unspecified "supernatural" act has nothing to do with science or biological evolution. However, if you read the bible (the inspired word of God) you will soon discover that anything that pertains to science is wrong, including the order of Creation.

ALFREDO SAID: ANDREW SAID, "So if God really "loves" us, why did he create this endless cycle of pain, suffering and the futile desire to survive? The only answer I can think of is that he ENJOYS making us struggle, which is sadistic, not loving."

ALFREDO REPLIES, "I'm going to play devil's advocate here because it's the most illuminating thing that I can do if Truth is what you're really after. When a parent brings a two or three year old child to the doctor to get a polio vaccination, we understand perfectly what is going on in the parent's mind and in the doctor's mind. But what is happening from the perspective of the child, whose mental capacity if vastly more limited? When I was three and my mother held me down while a strange man thrust a long, pointy needle into my flesh, I screamed in horror, despair, and abject incredulity. If my mother really loves me, how could she do something like this? The only answer I could think of is that she ENJOYS making me suffer, "which is sadistic, not loving." The reasons why a loving parent might (quite genuinely and literally) torture a small child in that manner are beyond the intellectual capacity of the child. The fact that the child can't imagine any justifiable reason doesn't mean that it doesn't exist."

LINDA SAID: This has nothing to do with a Supernatural (super superior) being putting man in a garden with two trees and telling him not to touch them. Then when Eve (who was not that clever) was told by a talking snake to eat the fruit of the tree she did and gave some to Adam. That's the reason for all the suffering and death.

ALFREDO SAID, "Is the argument presented in the above paragraph justification in belief in God. No, unequivocally no. Does it prove that God doesn't exist. Again, no. All the point illustrated in the paragraph above means is that you have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better argument."

LINDA SAID: The fact that pain is associated with damaging experiences is the result of natural selection. There was plenty of proof of evolution in all of that and not one shred of evidence of a Creator. That's because there is no proof of the existence of a Creator or that anything was designed, and if it was there would be.

The Bible says Adam and Eve started out in the garden but were driven out because of their disobedience to God. That means we all came from Adam and Eve because in the beginning there were only two people on earth, Adam and Eve, and they were the father and mother of Cain and Abel. Adam and Eve had another son Seth, from whom Noah descended, who alone with his family survived the flood. From Noah Abraham descended, and Christ descended from Abraham, who was the promised Seed of the woman of the garden that was to bruise the serpent's head.

There is one fundamental claim of Abrahamic faith that is testable by science: the claim that all humans descend from only Adam and Eve and that these two were not apelike ancestors, but modern humans. There could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes "coalesces" back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived. We can say there was no Adam and Eve with as much scientific certainty as we can say there was no virgin birth and resurrection. The scientific facts dismiss the existence of Adam and Eve and that means the story of human sin and redemption falls apart. Paul's teaching that links the historical Adam with redemption through Christ (Rom.5:12-19; 1 Cor.15:20-23; and Acts 17.

If the scientific facts dismiss the existence of Adam and Eve - I guess that means we don't need Jesus! And that's why science is the enemy.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

ustream.tv

Join us for the Bat Cruise Lecture, 1:15pm September 27th at Trinity United Methodist Church, at 40th and Speedway. Lecturers will be Richard Carrier and Chris Johnson.

The ACA Bat Cruise is set for Saturday, September 27th, 6-8pm. Purchase tickets in advance here.

The audio and video from Dr. Shahnawaz August lecture is now available.