Is God evil?

[Stu]

Quote (princess @ April 02 2011,00:16)

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” Einstein Hawkings is a fool, to mock such things.

Einstein could simply be objecting to the appeal to authority. I think that would make me upset too: were I ever to become a household name and people were to say “that Stu is an atheist and he got to be famous, so we shouldn't believe in gods” I would be disappointed that people had opted for the option where they don't think it through for themselves but just follow a guru in the manner of sheep and their shepherd. That would be a religious kind of atheism for those who don't like thinking for themselves, as christians here appear unable to do.

If we make long lists of intelligent, capable public figures who suffer under a god delusion, or equally long lists of celebrated figures who do not keep Imaginary Friends in their brains it means nothing regarding the existence of supernatural beings.

Hawking (as it is spelled) is no fool, and his mockery makes physics more entertaining. It did get more serious recently when he gave reasons for not needing a god to start the universe. Of course he did not say what he thought a god was or what it did, so he is not serious about the religious question, and that is the right response: no christian actually has anything really convincing to say about the beginning of the universe. All they have is the assertions to be found in their religious books, there is no explanation, analysis or evaluation.

Hawking's mockery of that is entirely appropriate. Of course as a non-believer in the tradition of Judeo-christianity he is to be called a fool by their scripture, but if the Psalms and Saul of Tarsus are going to call Hawking a fool then it is more fools them than he.

Stuart

[princess]

Stuart,

are you going to pull my hair next, playground rules do not apply with me, i have a tendecy to pull back.

so your hawkings, understood Einstien, this i doubt very much. the man is so out of his league with Einstien, way out.

once again Stuart, you must be suffering from short term memory loss, for I believe even in writing you could not understand. however this is common with one that cannot keep spirit and truth in balance, apes have a tendency to go so far, then that's it.

whichever the case, the voices in your head do not count either. however, being I cannot tell which one will recieve this post, with much earnest, I do hope it is the one that can comprehend the matter.

seriously Stuart, it is like talking to someone for the first time. really fustrating at times.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ April 01 2011,15:30)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 01 2011,07:07) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 31 2011,16:47) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:36) You see that Stu an Atheist is Satanic simply becase he is without God I think you will find satanism is not atheism. Stuart Yes, Satanism is the position of being an advesary against that which is God, if someone is without God(A-theist) they are Satanic. If you are without something then that is different from being against something.  I am not against things that do not exist, like your god. I am opposed to the immorality of your god concept, but that is not an acknowledgment that it is anything more than an idea in your head. What do you call someone who is an adversary of a nasty idea?  That I will acknowledge! Stuart

But you are against it otherwise there would be no argument against it.

If you are simply against “immorality” then you would base your arguments solely on what is or isn't immoral, God would not even be the issue with you in any way, you would not have a need to call God imaginary because after all immorality in your mind would have nothing to do with “God” since to you God doesn't exist.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (charity @ April 01 2011,17:26)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 01 2011,07:09) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 31 2011,16:51) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:35) The claim that evil “doesn't exist” is due to the fact that the laws of Spirituality say it's merely “the absence of Good” is semantic game-playing. Good is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon (thermal energy). Evil is an adjective, a description. To say that something is Evil, or that we feel Evil, or even that we're going out to “be evil,” is not to assert that evil “exists.” It's simply to describe the relative balance of things. The same applies to God (in this context a noun), and Satan(advesary) (an adjective). It's true that when we say, “It's Satan,” what we're actually describing is a relative absence of God in the vicinity. But that doesn't mean that by speaking of “the Satan” we're mistaking it for a thing that “exists.” We're merely describing the degree of illumination(awareness of God present) we perceive. So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit Good and Evil (or God and Satan) as a pair of opposite entities, only to “reveal” that the second term doesn't really name an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first. So satan is an adjective.  That might come as news to god-deluded people here. Your parlour trick is the semantic one of playing merry hell with definitions. Stuart The Adjective “Satan” describes the Noun “Atheist “ hi there…..but  the atheist doesn't believe in satan? an satan believes in God, there simply would not be a bible theme if no enemies are created! but here;s to the battles over Israel an Jerusalem, I don't really think the nz atheist are responsible for that?

No, The adjective “Satan” does describe an Atheist that denies God.

Satan does not believe in God in the sense that Satan disagrees with God and disagreeing with God is Tantamount to disbelief in God. God is Almighty therefore to disagree is to oppose HIM

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,10:42)

Quote (Stu @ April 01 2011,15:30) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 01 2011,07:07) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 31 2011,16:47) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:36) You see that Stu an Atheist is Satanic simply becase he is without God I think you will find satanism is not atheism. Stuart Yes, Satanism is the position of being an advesary against that which is God, if someone is without God(A-theist) they are Satanic. If you are without something then that is different from being against something.  I am not against things that do not exist, like your god. I am opposed to the immorality of your god concept, but that is not an acknowledgment that it is anything more than an idea in your head. What do you call someone who is an adversary of a nasty idea?  That I will acknowledge! Stuart But you are against it otherwise there would be no argument against it. If you are simply against “immorality” then you would base your arguments solely on what is or isn't immoral, God would not even be the issue with you in any way, you would not have a need to call God imaginary because after all immorality in your mind would have nothing to do with “God” since to you God doesn't exist.

Yes I oppose the concept of the god you carry in your head. There are moral, empirical and aesthetic arguments against it.

If my only argument was a moral one then I would not be making empirical or aesthetic arguments. But I am.

The Good News of Mohammad is that while he was a violent, illiterate pedophile who slaughtered people in conquering the Arabian Peninsula and establishing his obscenely-called Religion of Peace, ACTUALLY none of what he dictated about gods is true, so there is no need to worry about divine revenge or false promises of virgins.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,10:45)

No, The adjective “Satan” does describe an Atheist that denies God. Satan does not believe in God in the sense that Satan disagrees with God and disagreeing with God is Tantamount to disbelief in God. God is Almighty therefore to disagree is to oppose HIM

Can't even be bothered outlining the two or three logical fallacies in this.

BD you post some of the lamest thinking here. But then you are a god believer.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (princess @ April 02 2011,09:43)

Stuart, are you going to pull my hair next, playground rules do not apply with me, i have a tendecy to pull back. so your hawkings, understood Einstien, this i doubt very much. the man is so out of his league with Einstien, way out. once again Stuart, you must be suffering from short term memory loss, for I believe even in writing you could not understand. however this is common with one that cannot keep spirit and truth in balance, apes have a tendency to go so far, then that's it. whichever the case, the voices in your head do not count either. however, being I cannot tell which one will recieve this post, with much earnest, I do hope it is the one that can comprehend the matter. seriously Stuart, it is like talking to someone for the first time. really fustrating at times.

Pull away. When will you be starting?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ April 02 2011,11:25)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,10:45) No, The adjective “Satan” does describe an Atheist that denies God. Satan does not believe in God in the sense that Satan disagrees with God and disagreeing with God is Tantamount to disbelief in God. God is Almighty therefore to disagree is to oppose HIM Can't even be bothered outlining the two or three logical fallacies in this.   BD you post some of the lamest thinking here.  But then you are a god believer. Stuart

Stu,

It is you who insists on talking about something yo do not believe in and that sir is really lame.

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,15:21)

Quote (Stu @ April 02 2011,11:25) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,10:45) No, The adjective “Satan” does describe an Atheist that denies God. Satan does not believe in God in the sense that Satan disagrees with God and disagreeing with God is Tantamount to disbelief in God. God is Almighty therefore to disagree is to oppose HIM Can't even be bothered outlining the two or three logical fallacies in this.   BD you post some of the lamest thinking here.  But then you are a god believer. Stuart Stu, It is you who insists on talking about something yo do not believe in and that sir is really lame.

It's not me that discusses imaginary beings as if they really exist. That's not just lame…

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ April 02 2011,16:30)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,15:21) Quote (Stu @ April 02 2011,11:25) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,10:45) No, The adjective “Satan” does describe an Atheist that denies God. Satan does not believe in God in the sense that Satan disagrees with God and disagreeing with God is Tantamount to disbelief in God. God is Almighty therefore to disagree is to oppose HIM Can't even be bothered outlining the two or three logical fallacies in this.   BD you post some of the lamest thinking here.  But then you are a god believer. Stuart Stu, It is you who insists on talking about something yo do not believe in and that sir is really lame. It's not me that discusses imaginary beings as if they really exist.  That's not just lame… Stuart

To insist something is imaginary because you lack the faculty to experience it is not appropriate

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 03 2011,03:22)

Quote (Stu @ April 02 2011,16:30) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,15:21) Quote (Stu @ April 02 2011,11:25) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,10:45) No, The adjective “Satan” does describe an Atheist that denies God. Satan does not believe in God in the sense that Satan disagrees with God and disagreeing with God is Tantamount to disbelief in God. God is Almighty therefore to disagree is to oppose HIM Can't even be bothered outlining the two or three logical fallacies in this.   BD you post some of the lamest thinking here.  But then you are a god believer. Stuart Stu, It is you who insists on talking about something yo do not believe in and that sir is really lame. It's not me that discusses imaginary beings as if they really exist.  That's not just lame… Stuart To insist something is imaginary because you lack the faculty to experience it is not appropriate

Are you appealing to your own authority now?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ April 03 2011,08:35)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 03 2011,03:22) Quote (Stu @ April 02 2011,16:30) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,15:21) Quote (Stu @ April 02 2011,11:25) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,10:45) No, The adjective “Satan” does describe an Atheist that denies God. Satan does not believe in God in the sense that Satan disagrees with God and disagreeing with God is Tantamount to disbelief in God. God is Almighty therefore to disagree is to oppose HIM Can't even be bothered outlining the two or three logical fallacies in this.   BD you post some of the lamest thinking here.  But then you are a god believer. Stuart Stu, It is you who insists on talking about something yo do not believe in and that sir is really lame. It's not me that discusses imaginary beings as if they really exist.  That's not just lame… Stuart To insist something is imaginary because you lack the faculty to experience it is not appropriate Are you appealing to your own authority now? Stuart

Stu,

You keep insisting on not making any sense. If a person can not see due to their lack of optical blindness would that make all the things that people without that condition see be considered imaginary?

Come on, think harder.

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 04 2011,06:02)

If a person can not see due to their lack of optical blindness would that make all the things that people without that condition see be considered imaginary? Come on, think harder.

As usual your question does not make sense. Probably in this instance because of your use of the word “lack of”.

Stuart

[charity]

hey.

this is all about a scrap over the possession of land.
bodhitharta will you be happy when god picks a religion to win! an then the whole earth will be run from sin city! Jerusalem!

happy…only if it''s who you want to win…an guess what the war will more than likely keep going, for 2000 years ago gods will was easily defied, even with spiritual beings involved.. the zeal of the lord didn't preform an happen. ;Lack of: making sence

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ April 04 2011,17:57)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 04 2011,06:02) If a person can not see due to their lack of optical blindness would that make all the things that people without that condition see be considered imaginary? Come on, think harder. As usual your question does not make sense.  Probably in this instance because of your use of the word “lack of”.   Stuart

Lack of Optical vision

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 06 2011,14:38)

Quote (Stu @ April 04 2011,17:57) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 04 2011,06:02) If a person can not see due to their lack of optical blindness would that make all the things that people without that condition see be considered imaginary? Come on, think harder. As usual your question does not make sense.  Probably in this instance because of your use of the word “lack of”.   Stuart Lack of Optical vision

I see.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ April 06 2011,17:38)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 06 2011,14:38) Quote (Stu @ April 04 2011,17:57) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 04 2011,06:02) If a person can not see due to their lack of optical blindness would that make all the things that people without that condition see be considered imaginary? Come on, think harder. As usual your question does not make sense.  Probably in this instance because of your use of the word “lack of”.   Stuart Lack of Optical vision I see. Stuart

I wish you could

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 07 2011,06:58)

Quote (Stu @ April 06 2011,17:38) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 06 2011,14:38) Quote (Stu @ April 04 2011,17:57) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 04 2011,06:02) If a person can not see due to their lack of optical blindness would that make all the things that people without that condition see be considered imaginary? Come on, think harder. As usual your question does not make sense.  Probably in this instance because of your use of the word “lack of”.   Stuart Lack of Optical vision I see. Stuart I wish you could

Could what?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ April 08 2011,15:38)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 07 2011,06:58) Quote (Stu @ April 06 2011,17:38) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 06 2011,14:38) Quote (Stu @ April 04 2011,17:57) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 04 2011,06:02) If a person can not see due to their lack of optical blindness would that make all the things that people without that condition see be considered imaginary? Come on, think harder. As usual your question does not make sense.  Probably in this instance because of your use of the word “lack of”.   Stuart Lack of Optical vision I see. Stuart I wish you could Could what? Stuart

See

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 06 2011,06:38)

Quote (Stu @ April 08 2011,15:38) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 07 2011,06:58) Quote (Stu @ April 06 2011,17:38) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 06 2011,14:38) Quote (Stu @ April 04 2011,17:57) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 04 2011,06:02) If a person can not see due to their lack of optical blindness would that make all the things that people without that condition see be considered imaginary? Come on, think harder. As usual your question does not make sense.  Probably in this instance because of your use of the word “lack of”.   Stuart Lack of Optical vision I see. Stuart I wish you could Could what? Stuart See

See what? That which your brain tells you is there? When you close your right eye, what does your brain tells you there is standing in line of sight behind the blind spot of your left eye? You cannot possibly see that area because there is a hole in your retina at that point, but your brain is filling the void with what it thinks should be there.

Just like the god you think is there, which your brain fills in for you and you believe despite the complete lack of any unambiguous evidence for it outside your own imagination.

I'm open to unambiguous evidence, of course. Do you have any?

Stuart

[Author]

Posts