Religious Question #1

[Angry Dragon]

If god is suppose to create everything, where does evil come from??

[ret5hd]

1. wow...

that's deep, man.

[rug]

2. I hope #2 is more original.

Personally, I believe all that is evil comes from Camden, New Jersey.

[Angry Dragon]

4. Then you must have the answer

Your answer makes as much sense as saying evil comes from you

[rug]

6. To be fair, I have my doubts.

Sometimes in the dark of night I think it may be Secaucus.

[Angry Dragon]

8. The large religions teach good and evil

a very big basis of religion
all I am asking is where does evil come from
If there is no answer then religion is built on a very weak foundation

[rug]

10. It's easy to find the answer.

For the West, check free will.

For the East, check attachment.

For North America, check Camden (or Secaucus).

[Angry Dragon]

11. I am glad that you did not disappoint me

by actually having a honest answer


So by your answer is that man can create evil. Much as god can create good.
Sounds like they are equals by your answer.

[rug]

13. That was the correct answer, considering what a hoary question you trotted out.

Much like your, Man make evil, God make good, Man equal God, drivel.

[Angry Dragon]

14. Evil exists ......... I just asked where it came from

Either god created it or god did not ...........
Or evil does not exist

Then religion is based on a weak foundation
It seems to me that it is a very legitimate question

[rug]

15. You believe evil exists? On what basis?

[Angry Dragon]

16. Murders, some politicians, hate, intolerance

The universe as we know it has a balance

You do not believe evil exists??

[rug]

17. Why do you call murder evil instead of simply murder?

[Angry Dragon]

18. Rug, post #16 asked a question

I will answer your question in post #17 when you give an honest answer to the question in post #16

[rug]

21. Yes. The question is why you believe.

[Angry Dragon]

22. The question is: You do not believe evil exists??

Now maybe you can answer that in a honest manner.
I have answered your questions.
Unless ...............

[rug]

25. No, I do. Where's your answer?

[Angry Dragon]

28. I had to wait for your answer first

The answer would be that murder is evil, I don't believe anyone could call it good

[rug]

34. That's circular. Why call murder evil rather than simply murder?

By adding that quality you are asserting something exists beyond murder. Why?

[Angry Dragon]

36. You said that you believed that evil exists

There are evil acts, murder is just one of them, so yes evil exists beyond murder.
The Bible lists murder as a sin.
So why go beyond murder and call it a sin??
Makes as much sense ..........

The Bible talks about good works, why not just call it works??

[rug]

38. I did but you still haven't provided your answer.

I'll wait. I'll see if you can explain why you believe evil exists without bringing up the Bible which you reject.

It's your premise.

[Angry Dragon]

40. I am curious how you determine that I reject the Bible ........

Then I should use words that you can understand.
We will call it good and bad.
One can have the ability to determine what is good vs bad without the Bible


And I can look around in the world and see bad or evil
I can also see the good

[rug]

41. Then you simply believe things are good or bad, not evil.

Gauged by what?

[Angry Dragon]

42. Hey rug answer the questions put to you before you ask your own

that is only polite ...........

[rug]

43. I already did, in 25.

Now, to return to my question, how do you gauge what is good and what is evil.

I understand your hesitance to answer. Slowly, you're getting closer to answering your OP.

[Angry Dragon]

44. You have never answered the question in the OP except with snark

and you were asked a question in #40 that you never answered
So you need to be a little more polite

[rug]

45. I did, in 10. Disregarding Secaucus, it was terse but it was not snark.

Now, how do you gauge what is good and what is not, disregarding religious concepts?

[Angry Dragon]

47. Multiple choice answers just don't cut it

and you still have not answered the question in #40


What difference does it make what I believe is good or evil??

[rug]

56. There is no question in 40.

Since you clearly are evading answering a question, which is based on the premise of your OP, we're done.

I've seen more candor in Camden.

[Angry Dragon]

59. It was a gentle question ..........

I asked why you thought I rejected the Bible

[rug]

64. Frankly, I don't care why you reject the Bible.

What I would find more interesting is why, and on what basis, you think evil exists.

[Angry Dragon]

68. On the same basis that I think good exists

On to the other thing: You accused me of not believing in the Bible ......... that is an attack in my book, a mild one, but an attack just the same and I asked you how you could make such an attack ......... which you have refused to answer up to this point

[cbayer]

69. Do you have any scientific evidence that good or evil exist.

If so, could you share it?

If not, does it really exist?

[Angry Dragon]

74. That is no different than asking you if you have any sceintific evidence that

your god exists .......... and no I do not

Do emotions exist?? Is there any scientific evidence that they do??
I believe emotions exist but I have never seen them ..........

[cbayer]

75. Exactly right. It's exactly the same question.

Not having scientific proof about whether something exists does not mean it does not exist.

Therefore, those that make definitive statements about the non-existence of god, and state that those that hold that belief are delusional or stupid, are in way over their collective heads.

[Angry Dragon]

78. I have never called anyone delusional or stupid, are in way over their collective heads

for their belief in a god

[cbayer]

79. Never said you did. But some do.

[rug]

70. Which is what?

If you do not reject the Bible, just say so. It's simple. This is not 20 questions.

[Angry Dragon]

71. You attacked me, I ask that you explain yourself

[rug]

73. Ididn't attack you. I asked you a question.

One which you have yet to answer.

Do you think saying you don't accept the Bible is an attack?

[Angry Dragon]

76. Go back to post #38 and you will see it

[rug]

77. I see neither an attack nor an answer to the question.

Why are you having such a difficult time answering? After all, you started this thread with a question. Which I answered.

[Angry Dragon]

80. Bull

You only answered with snark and multiple choice, you accused me of rejecting the Bible, I call that an attack
When you start answering the questions put to you then I might take you more seriously.

[rug]

82. Either answer the question I asked or declare you won't.

Take your pick.

[Angry Dragon]

85. Show me where you answered the OP question without

the snark you used or mutliple choice and I will answer your questions.

As I said before I asked questions and you refused to answer them but you think your questions should be answered. You attacked me and have refused to answer for it. I call that very impolite. Is that the type of person you are??

[rug]

86. 10 and 45. Now answer my question.

I have no interest in discussing our respective personalities.

[Angry Dragon]

91. Number 10 was multiple choice and I have no idea what you meant by attachment

#45 the same thing

And you still have not answered for your attack. You go back and look at the questions and answers and notice how many you refuse to answer.

I will not answer your questions until you answer mine that were asked first. That is fair and polite.

[rug]

98. It's obvious you are unable or unwilling to answer a straightforward question,

Good luck on religious question #2.

[Angry Dragon]

100. You refuse to answer the question in the OP

I asked you why you accused me of rejecting the Bible and you refuse to answer
and you accuse me of being unable or unwilling to answer a question.
Talk about someone being a hypocrite
and I do have an answer to your questions but I refuse to answer questions if questions asked first do not get an answer.

You have two questions to answer first and then I will answer yours.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

126. Really?

Is it not murder when the state exercises capital punishment? Are there not people who call that good? Is it not murder when nations drop bombs on civilians? Are there not those who call that good? You are giving way too much credit when you say "I don't believe anyone could call it good"

[Angry Dragon]

137. There is a difference between murder and killing

To answer your questions:

No
Yes
Yes
Yes

[ZombieHorde]

124. In my current opinion, evil does not exist outside of the perceiver's mind.

In my current opinion, evil is an emotional reaction to perceived stimuli, and nothing more.

[Angry Dragon]

125. Would the same hold true for goodness??

[ZombieHorde]

132. Yes. nt

[mindwalker_i]

32. God created man, who could then create evil

So God's still an asshole.

[cbayer]

3. Got up on the wrong side of bed one day?

[Angry Dragon]

5. You can do better than that

[cbayer]

7. No, really. I can't.

[SarahM32]

9. A very valid question, which many people have tried to answer.

The best answer I have found is in an article that discusses esoteric teachings of the Western Qaballah, which Freemasons and Rosicrucians learn.

The following quote comes after stating that a late but prominent Freemason and Rosicrucian believed that God not only creates good, but also creates evil, but, even though that belief stems from the Hebrew Bible or OT, the author disagrees, saying:

" ... he believed that the Lord God not only creates good, but also actually creates evil and wickedness because Isaiah 45:5-7 and Amos 3:6 say so. However, that concept is problematic because it is grossly misunderstood, and it is misunderstood because it wasn’t meant literally.

God cannot override the free will of the ego of Man. If God could create evil and wickedness in people, then God could create good and kindness in people, and if that were possible all humanity would be good and kind to each other.

Furthermore, if one believes that God destroys as well as creates, that God creates evil as well as good, and that every event that occurs is because God caused or willed it (as many religions claim), then one is forced to believe that Adolf Hitler actually served "the will of the Lord," as he claimed, and that God has caused good people to be killed in natural disasters or wars, women to be raped, and innocent children to suffer and die from hunger, or be molested and even killed by pedophiles.

God our Great Spirit-Parent would not do that, nor would God allow it if it were possible for God to stop it. For our Creator and God is just, forgiving, merciful, and beneficent. When we suffer the wrath of Nature or the wrath of Man, it is not because of God. It is because of the sin, wickedness, carelessness, and errors of human beings who have harmed the environment and/or their fellow human beings."

You can read the article at An Ancient Pictorial Symbolic Prophecy.
.

[Angry Dragon]

12. Thank you for your answer

I will read it and think on it ............

[spin]

109. A very interesting link. (n/t)

[SarahM32]

117. Thanks. I'm glad you found it so.

[pinto]

19. God, I guess.

[Angry Dragon]

23. Thank You

[rrneck]

20. It comes from the same place as god.

Us.

[Angry Dragon]

24. Thank You

[mindwalker_i]

33. Evil comes from my butt

...which is a subset of man and therefore, a subset of what God created.

[rrneck]

37. Lay off the burritos. nt

[mindwalker_i]

46. Burritos came from God too

[rrneck]

50. Holy shit! nt

[CrispyQ]

26. You might find this interesting.

Is God a Taoist?

http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html

I am fortunate to have this article in a book. You will probably have to copy the text from the link & copy it into a text editor or word processor. They have chosen a very unfortunate background for reading!

[Angry Dragon]

29. Thank you for the link

[hrmjustin]

27. Well as an episcopalian i believe God gave us all free will.

God created the universe thru the big bang. Allowed humans to evolve, and in the end gave us a soul. We have the ability to choose good and evil. well that is my thoughts as a christian.

[marasinghe]

30. in my opinion ....

it starts with not sweating the small things;
like carelessness with the basic rules of grammar, spelling & such.
like, for example, not capitalizing the first letter of a sentence.
but, that's just my personal belief. as you can see, i wallow in evil.

[Angry Dragon]

31. wallow away

[longship]

35. Argument from evil?

Know you are trying to get the Religion forum into a real chair throwing argument. Or not. Maybe people will ignore it, since it is such a classic atheist argument. I agree with it, but the discussion inevitably devolves into rubbish.

Granted, I think the argument from evil is the best, it is the one argument which doesn't work against an unmovable ideology.

[Angry Dragon]

39. I look at it as a theist argument

If you only have good then you would have no sin.
Evil came from some place.
All I asked is where it came from ..........

[spin]

48. I feel that it somewhat unwise to question God and his motives. ...

He is so far beyond us with our limited intelligence to be defy our ability to comprehend.

My cat may be able to figure out that when I throw a light switch the room brightens. No matter how hard I try I can't explain to him how that works. Once a month I sneak up on my cat and apply flea drops to his neck and yearly I take him to the vet for shots and a checkup by another strange hairless ape and his assistant. He usually hates me for a day or so.

If there is a God or creator (which I believe) it is difficult to explain his reasons or goals in creating a universe and our small planet. It might be possible that he was simply bored. In order to make our planet interesting he might have chosen to create a species with the intelligence to tell the difference between good and evil and "free will" to chose which course to follow. He might have felt that it made for an interesting and entertaining project.

It could be argued that without God there would be no good or evil. Of course God could have chosen to create a world without violence or hardship but that would have been a heaven.

You ask an excellent question for which I can only speculate. I personally believe that our life is a test and that good people despite their religion will see a better future after death. Of course I could be totally wrong. I try my best to be a "good" person and to follow the Golden Rule which is common to many if not all religions. I also personally know atheists who, while they refuse to believe in a God, try to do the same as I do.

[cbayer]

51. Really enjoyed this post

[trotsky]

53. There is so much to address in this post.

He is so far beyond us with our limited intelligence to be defy our ability to comprehend.

You state this as if it were a fact. How do you know this?

God could have chosen to create a world without violence or hardship but that would have been a heaven

Which, according to believers, exists and is real. So why not just create heaven and be done?

I personally believe that our life is a test and that good people despite their religion will see a better future after death.

How much of a "test" has life been for the infant who dies shortly after death? How much of a test has it been for Dick Cheney, who has lived a comfortable life with no sacrifices?

One last thing - you said atheists "refuse to believe in a God". I find your use of the word "refuse" to be disturbing. It implies that atheists recognize valid evidence for gods but actively reject it. It carries negative connotations, that there must be ulterior motives atheists have for simply believing in one less god than you do.

[spin]

65. My reply ...

The OP was "If god is suppose to create everything, where does evil come from??" which does not question the existence of God but asks about his motivations. The argument if God is reality or imagination would be a subject for a different discussion. Quoting from my post, "If there is a God or creator (which I believe)" would indicate that that is my belief and not necessary the truth. (I believe that I can effectively argue for or against the existence of a God.)

You ask "Which, according to believers, exists and is real. So why not just create heaven and be done?" addresses the subject of the original OP and asks about God's reasoning. My point is that we lack to intelligence to question the motivations or reasoning of a Supreme Being if he, she, it does indeed exist.

Let's consider the developers of a computer game. They often incorporate violence into their program in order to make the game more interesting. Often when an excessively violent computer game is made, the developers do face criticism. That is fair as we can understand and comprehend the motivations of computer game developers and have the ability to argue for or against their product.

You ask:

How much of a "test" has life been for the infant who dies shortly after death? How much of a test has it been for Dick Cheney, who has lived a comfortable life with no sacrifices?

Once again speculating on God's motivations seems to me to be somewhat foolish. For all we know God might have simply created the Universe and basically leaves it running on its own. Or perhaps he occasionally intervenes and offers help and guidance to a few chosen individuals. Maybe he is deeply involved in every individual's daily life but allows us the freedom to make our own choices. Perhaps our lives are predestined from birth. We can speculate all day and never know the truth. If may be great fun but nothing will be accomplished.

Your last comment was:

One last thing - you said atheists "refuse to believe in a God". I find your use of the word "refuse" to be disturbing. It implies that atheists recognize valid evidence for gods but actively reject it. It carries negative connotations, that there must be ulterior motives atheists have for simply believing in one less god than you do.

What is the dentition of atheism?

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I was not critical of atheists as I said:

...I personally believe that our life is a test and that good people despite their religion will see a better future after death. Of course I could be totally wrong. I try my best to be a "good" person and to follow the Golden Rule which is common to many if not all religions. I also personally know atheists who, while they refuse to believe in a God, try to do the same as I do.

In fact I have known many atheists whose behavior could be a model for most religious people.

[trotsky]

94. We can progress no further until you address this basic flaw in your entire position:

"My point is that we lack to intelligence to question the motivations or reasoning of a Supreme Being if he, she, it does indeed exist. "

You are stating this (not the existence of said deity, but a particular characteristic of it) as if it were fact. You have not demonstrated that we lack the intelligence to do this - you act as if it's a given. Tell me why I should accept that as a given.

And I'm afraid you're not understanding my objection to your use of the word "refuse."

[spin]

97. This thread is based on the assumption that there is a Supreme Being or God. ...

The posed question was why does this deity allow evil in the world he created.

The existence of God is a separate topic. However in a post asking this question it would be reasonable to use "evil" as a reason to deny the existence of God. Perhaps the original poster was insinuating this but if so it was not clearly stated.

If you grant that there is a superior being that created the entire universe you would have to admit that the any human would not have the required intelligence to do the same. Can you design and create a sun, a tree or even a cat from nothing? Of course our species may at some time in the far future be able to accomplish these tasks. We may accumulate the knowledge to create life from nothing but currently this is impossible.

Imagine a void without energy or matter or even time. This void decides to set evolution into action. Consequently the universe is born and over billions of years becomes the vast conglomeration of energy and matter, galaxies and stars with planets some of which allow life for bacteria and even intelligent life. Explain how this could happen. How did absolutely nothing become something?

Scientists are now beginning to question what happened before the "Big Bang." Many theories abound.

The Atlantic Home
Wednesday, September 26, 2012

What Happened Before the Big Bang? The New Philosophy of Cosmology
By Ross Andersen

***snip***

Tweet Jan 19 2012, 11:49 AM ET
This question of accounting for what we call the "big bang state" -- the search for a physical explanation of it -- is probably the most important question within the philosophy of cosmology, and there are a couple different lines of thought about it. One that's becoming more and more prevalent in the physics community is the idea that the big bang state itself arose out of some previous condition, and that therefore there might be an explanation of it in terms of the previously existing dynamics by which it came about. There are other ideas, for instance that maybe there might be special sorts of laws, or special sorts of explanatory principles, that would apply uniquely to the initial state of the universe.

One common strategy for thinking about this is to suggest that what we used to call the whole universe is just a small part of everything there is, and that we live in a kind of bubble universe, a small region of something much larger. And the beginning of this region, what we call the big bang, came about by some physical process, from something before it, and that we happen to find ourselves in this region because this is a region that can support life. The idea being that there are lots of these bubble universes, maybe an infinite number of bubble universes, all very different from one another. Part of the explanation of what's called the anthropic principle says, "Well now, if that's the case, we as living beings will certainly find ourselves in one of those bubbles that happens to support living beings." That gives you a kind of account for why the universe we see around us has certain properties.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/

(Note: this article is a worthwhile read.)

Still this question can be asked, "How did something come from nothing?" If we do indeed live in just a small segment of an infinite number of bubble universes, where did they come from?

Now I find myself engaging in an argument for a supreme being which was not my objective in the post that started this sub thread.

You state that I don't understand your objection to the use of the work "refuse" in this statement from a previous post.

I also personally know atheists who, while they refuse to believe in a God, try to do the same as I do.

Let me try once more to explain my use of the word.

a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever - someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)...emphasis added
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

Perhaps you can explain exactly what you dislike about my using that word. I might learn something.

[trotsky]

99. Having the intelligence to create the universe is one thing.

Having the intelligence to understand a being's motivations is another.

You need to demonstrate why we don't have the latter. You are assuming it to be true, but haven't substantiated it.

Now I find myself engaging in an argument for a supreme being which was not my objective in the post that started this sub thread.

That's entirely your own choosing. I didn't ask you to argue for a supreme being, I asked how you could make a statement of fact about it.

Second, I explained why I object to the word "refuse" in my first response. Let's look at some of its definitions.

re·fuse [ri-fyooz] verb, re·fused, re·fus·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to decline to accept (something offered): to refuse an award.
2. to decline to give; deny (a request, demand, etc.): to refuse permission.
3. to express a determination not to (do something): to refuse to discuss the question.
4. to decline to submit to.

Definition 4 best covers the connotations that I am objecting to, but all contain a shade of meaning that something exists, but is being rejected for other reasons. Plus, you do realize that the dictionary definition of atheist was written by a believer, right?

[spin]

108. I feel you have explained your opposition to the word effectively. ...

Consequently I have learned something today.

I still don't think that it is at all illogical to state that a supreme being would have to have far more intelligence than a human has and consequently questioning his/her/its motivations is somewhat foolish. Further speculation on who or what God is is beyond my pay grade. He/she/it may be shear energy and simultaneously everywhere in the universe.

[trotsky]

114. I'm not questioning the logic of your assertion, because there's nothing to question.

You've just arbitrarily made a claim about the nature of a supreme being, and made no attempt to justify it whatsoever. I'm asking you to justify it - are you refusing, or are you retracting the claim?

[spin]

119. We can waste a lot of electrons discussing this issue ...

and never reach agreement.

If you assume that there is a supreme being who is responsible for creating something from absolutely nothing it is logical to assume this entity has intelligence superior to ours. Past that point it is impossible to draw further conclusions about this force or presence. That is my view and I see no reason to change it or even to justify it.

[trotsky]

121. We don't need to reach agreement.

I'd just like to see some justification for your absolute claim. From what I can gather, it amounts to "Because I said so." Not very conducive to discussion, but so be it. Your claim is unsupported.

[spin]

122. I think we have reached an impasse. (n/t)

[trotsky]

123. That definitely happens when one party refuses to justify their statements of fact. n/t

[Tigress DEM]

131. Yeah, there is.

I'm a Christian, but I'm very open to the idea that others don't have the personal understanding that I do and their perceptions may make it very different for them to live in this world. If we think in polar opposites, our viewpoints change the way we see the world.

However, like the other poster, I've had conversations with reasonable atheists and have been happy to find out, and a little embarrassed to be honest, that moral values can exist without the whole God thing. I had those conversations when I was young and naive and it simply didn't occur to me HOW someone would learn about morality or study it without reference to the study of God. Humanists. Ethical individuals. It's a pleasure to know good hearted people of any stripe.

Still atheists make a choice to not believe in God. Refuse was probably an ill chosen word, but having had these conversations and listening a lot, I've got your point. However, it's equally uncomfortable for a Christian to hear that we are basically making this up and centuries of field experience means absolutely nothing. It means something, we just don't agree on what it means. Atheists do reject the idea that further study is relevant and have moved on to other things.

So let's speak in a more scientific way. IF there is a creator as many people believe, then to have created all that we are as humans and the world etc.... that being would be far beyond our understanding. It's kind of a given that something that is created is less intelligent than that which created it. Even with computers whose raw computing power gives them a speed of intelligence well past our own, it still takes a person to make full sense of the data.

I disagree with Trotsky that God "could have" created a world without violence or hardship. I believe He did, Eden. THEN free will was introduced and we got confused, possibly chemically altered by "fruit" that wasn't meant for us to eat. As in most myths have some basis in fact, something happened.

IF our creator is a being of light and love and creativity, possibly we have to be on that wave length to return to our original spiritual self upon death. This essence of who we are inhabits a physical body and we severed our natural communication at the fall and need to work through many levels of understanding to get back to that state. We have to purge the inter-fear-ance in order to return to our source.

Babies haven't learned to hate yet so their channel is still clear.

Chenney lives a comfortable physical life, but his heart and soul are black and nearly lifeless. So he gets his full reward here on Earth and ceases to be a problem once he dies. He's failing his test, but that's his own problem. Course living on this planet while he spews isn't any fun.

[trotsky]

138. If you believe in an actual, literal Garden of Eden...

then I'm afraid we don't have anything to discuss. Please post more in this group though, because many liberal believers deny literalists like you exist!

[Tigress DEM]

139. I'm open to other interpretations, but it's in reference to some time, some place that was "ideal"

Many other cultures have similar transitions in their creation stories. So when one considers oral histories and how garbled something gets when it's passed through several people much less several thousands of years... who knows specifically what happened, but the fact that our right and left hemispheres can at times work more together (more in women than men for some reason) makes me wonder if our brains weren't messed up at some point in history.

WERE WE actually smart enough to have created the pyramids on our own? Did we have advanced skills that supersede our present technology? WHY do we only use 20% of our brain at the genius level?

When you call me a "literalist" and then say we have no more to discuss, surely you jest. I simply think that it's one possible explanation and that if we really had all the facts we would see why the story was passed down that specific way.

Why is it so completely far fetched to believe that the Garden of Eden was an actual place? Do you disbelieve in Disney World? Lot's of fantasy going on there, but it's a real location in time and space that has a set of rules and people who go there in physical space and time. Do you disbelieve what is said about the Aztecs? I'd like to, it turns my stomach to think about it, but I think of it in anthropological terms and I accept the general hypothesis.

The real message for me is very compatible with life on DU, don't look only at the numbers, don't rely only on your gut feelings. Research them both and get as close to source material as possible. I think this "knowledge of good and evil" can be a distraction because people want to put easy labels on it so it's everyone else that is at fault.

[trotsky]

140. Yes, the Egyptians were smart enough to build the pyramids on their own.

Why do you think humans are so stupid and incapable?

The "20% of our brains" is an urban myth. The Garden of Eden is a place in a fictional story.

We clearly have nothing to discuss. Take care.

[Tigress DEM]

141. OK be an elitist and don't talk to me.

I DON'T think humans are stupid OR incapable. Quite the opposite. I simply think we have a lot more potential to learn and grow into a mental capacity that includes peaceful discourse among other things.

People's brains get damaged and other areas compensate. We still tend to be logical (left brain/right handed) or intuitive (right brain/left handed). So my point is that when both hemispheres work together MORE can be accomplished in the same way that diverse opinions improves the general knowledge.

I've seen documentaries about how the pyramids COULD have been built with the technology of the time and am aware the Egyptians had killer math and astronomy skills.

I am sorry I was duped by an urban myth. Our knowledge on brain mapping has grown quite a bit. I'm an old lady, but that is no excuse. I should have kept up. Thanks for the info.

YES, "the Garden of Eden" is a place in a story. STILL, legends can point to a real time and place and it's based on SOMETHING. You may live in a cut and dried world where if you don't see "the fountain of youth" for yourself or documented scientifically that it doesn't exist, never existed and can't possibly exist. You may be right on all counts. I prefer to have a more creative take on life and maybe discover a WHY to the story that explains more about it.

There is room for people like you in my world. It's sad that you can't have room for me in yours, but no matter. Have a nice life.

[trotsky]

142. There is no reason to call me names.

I will not be abused by you. Good day.

[Tigress DEM]

143. AS if the whole snideness in post 138 wasn't name calling.

You labeled me a "literalist," said I was not worth talking to and said most people didn't think someone like me exists, like a dinosaur or something. Puuuuleese. I didn't whine like a baby. I took it in stride and enjoyed your information.

If you don't like the moniker of elitist, then ditch the behavior. At least I said something about you that is referencing behavior that you can choose to continue or choose not to. It's a challenge. Rise to the occassion. You ARE a DEM aren't you?

I didn't try to define you by your beliefs or lack there of, though I am suprised that someone who posts in the religion thread can be so upset by someone expressing a religious belief.

If you think it's tough in this forum, maybe you weren't around when any religious discussion was all out flamers on the main board. This space seems to have brought about progress.

[trotsky]

144. I believe you exist.

Others in this group do not. You believe there really was a Garden of Eden. To believe that is to be a biblical literalist. No name calling, that's the definition.

You, however, are insulting with names. You act as if you have superior thinking and morality to me, and yet you're the one behaving so badly. I think you should work on yourself before you start lecturing others. I don't know why you are so threatened by me but please direct your energies toward improving your own behavior.

[QuantumOfPeace]

145. Facts and opinions

_You state this as if it were a fact. How do you know this?_

One answer: As finite beings, we cannot possibly know infinite consequences. It's like the butterfly effect, maybe.

I suspect there are other ways to think about it, too.


_Which, according to believers, exists and is real. So why not just create heaven and be done?_

Because (temporal) life is precious in its own way, which includes knowledge of good and evil.

Besides, it seems kinda lame (and self-destructive?) to go through life thinking that the earth should be heaven, when there is no way to achieve that on your own reckoning/assertion.

To be upset for something you cannot get/have? That's not delusion, but seems it could lead to some kind of neurosis, maybe, or depression or anxiety.

[trotsky]

146. Begging the question.

Logical fallacy. When you can provide some actual reasoning behind your position, I'll be glad to listen.

[okasha]

58. My cats have the gift of prophecy.

They know exactly what's going to happen even before they hear the carrier rattle.

[Tigress DEM]

134. Are they in communion with the Flying Spaghetti Monster? : )

[Oregonian]

60. That's a 4-paragraph cop out

You're correct, your cat once thought the room lit up magically. But in millions of cat years, your cat learned the connection between electrical currents and how they connect with light-bulb filaments. It's called evolution.

The cat would've then replaced the "magic owner" theory with the "electricity" theory.

Bad shit happens in the world, and theists chalk it up to "his ways are higher than ours". Personally, I think that's a bullshit surrender of an argument. The truth is, there is no god, there are only humans, animals, and the physical conditions (bad weather, scarcity of resources, individual greed and tribal associations) of earth. The "evil" is simply the interplay that results in disaster for some (widespread drought, flooding, poverty and death in the 3rd world) and success for others (bountiful water, food, oil, elecricity, infrastructure and money in the U.S./Europe).

Just as we used to chalk up earthquakes to God moving furniture or losing his temper, we now know the reason is tectonic plates that move. Every "it's God" explanation prior to 1850 has been replaced by science, almost without exception.

Evil, therefore, does not exist. The OP's premise is invalid (but maybe that was the point).

[Angry Dragon]

61. The OP does believe that evil exists

[Oregonian]

81. Well then, your premise is screwed

And your question is ridiculous.

[Angry Dragon]

83. Do you believe good exists??

[Oregonian]

84. There's no good or evil

This isn't Disneyland. There are actions that hurt or help people, and there are unintended consequences abound.

[Angry Dragon]

87. Okay

I stated above where I said that the major religions used good and evil as a major foundation.
Your statement will shake that foundation

I have no problem with your statement

[Oregonian]

88. I thought you said evil exists?

Are you going back on that now? Not sure why, but I am curious as to what your official position is...

As Rug said earlier, murder is murder, not evil.

[Angry Dragon]

89. 'As Rug said earlier, murder is murder, not evil.' LOL

So in your view there is nothing underlaying that murder??

And I do believe that evil exists, I just meant that I found nothing wrong with you having your own opinion on it.

[Oregonian]

92. "LOL"?

I guess I missed the laugh. People kill in self-defense. People "murder" bad people. There are all kinds of shades of gray in human actions.

What is "underlaying" that murder? Uh, probably a motive to kill. Evil implies supernatural hogwash. There's just us.

[Angry Dragon]

93. I thought rug's statement was laughable

murder: Kill intentionally and with premeditation

Kill: Cause the death of, without intention


As I said before, if evil does not exist then there is no foundation for organized religion
And there is a lot of supernatural out there, promoted by many

[Oregonian]

95. Well there's no evidence for anything you say

So, I guess.....rest on that?

[Angry Dragon]

96. There is no evidence for emotions to exist except

you can feel them
I can feel evil and good

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

49. Some thoughts on the matter

Alfonso X of Castile, surnamed El Sabio -- "The Wise" -- wrote, "Had I been present at the Creation, I could have made a few suggestions for the better ordering of the universe."

God is omnipotent, all good, and all loving. Why, then, is there suffering and evil in the world?

The problem of evil only arises in a certain set of circumstances. If you believe in two gods, one good and one bad, there is no problem. Evil, in such a system, is as much a part of the show as good. The same thing is true if you believe that God made the world, not out of nothing, but out of some primeval matter God was stuck with. Then you can blame evil on the sleaziness of the raw materials and get God off the hook. (Jesus hanging on the cross means that God is firmly on the hook. However, the problem still remains.)

However, Christians believe that Yahweh is the only God, that all things are created out of nothing, and that God delights in creation and finds it good. So, why is there evil? Moreover, there is not only evil, there is also "the problem of pain." Evil is those things which people do which are wrong: Pride, anger, envy, greed, lust, sloth, gluttony, etc. Pain is "the thousand natural shocks our flesh is heir to": Disease, tornadoes, man-eating-sharks. The standard explanation of evil is that God allows us free will, so that we shall choose the good of our own accord, thus furthering God’s glory. However, we have no real answer to the problem of pain. (One of my favorite science fiction stories is Poul Anderson’s "The Problem of Pain". In it, Anderson posits a monotheistic alien race with a concept of God that answers the problem of pain, but cannot explain why there is evil.) Some have said that God allows suffering to teach us lessons and make us better. Thus, we have disappointment to teach us perseverance, pain so we learn to keep our hands out of the fire, unkindness from others to help us grow in charity, and so on. The problem is the "and so on": Famine, to teach us what? Earthquakes, for what reason? Cancer, to improve us how? The whole bleeding, dying, screaming, lying, cheating, rotting carcass of the world to uplift us to what end?

This simply does not work. For a few great souls, poverty may be a blessing; for everyone else, it is a curse. Now and then, a terminal disease ennobles, most of the time, it is just rotten. God as a teacher who uses such methods makes him the warden of the worst run penitentiary of all. T S Eliot described this view in his "East Coker":

The whole earth is our hospital
Endowed by the ruined millionaire,
Wherein, if we do well, we shall
Die of the absolute paternal care
Which does pursue us everywhere.

Others say that suffering is the result of sin. Speaking of a man born blind, the disciples ask, ""'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' Jesus answered, 'Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.'" (John 9:2-3)

Although scripture affirms sin as causing suffering, it is not the sole cause. Suffering is a conflict between what is and what should be, sickness and health, failure and achievement, rivalry and love. At one level suffering simply describes the tensions that torture us in our attempts to be whole. The suffering caused by sin is aggravated by the conflict arising from self-centeredness, estrangement, and compromise of ideals. In any case, suffering has no value in itself. It is one thing to say that suffering shows the work of God; it is quite another to say that it has redemptive power itself.

[spin]

110. Great post. Thanks! (n/t)

[Waltons_Mtn]

52. What about evil is the absence of God or byproduct if you will.

I believe in physics. For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. God creates something good action. The reaction is something evil is also created. Just my opinion. Good question though.

[Lint Head]

54. Good could not exist without evil. The definition of good would disappear without evil.

Light does not exist without dark. Comparisons are in all definitions and concepts. Words and sounds would not exist without silence.
Religion and science come together in relativity. For every action there is a reaction. All of the previous being considered true. There is not an answer for every question.

[spin]

67. Good post. (n/t)

[Lint Head]

72. You are kind!

[Evoman]

112. Without evil posts, good posts could not exist.

Wait, what?

[rock]

55. George W's farts

You thought that just because he was gone his stench wouldn't linger, didn't you?

[gopiscrap]

57. Original Sin

man's free will...

[orpupilofnature57]

106. Innate Desire for Knowledge

[Tigress DEM]

128. Or the original "spin" that boiled life down to talking points instead of taking it as a whole?

I think whether we were colonists who had some higher thought processes and had a bad experience with local flora or were created by some entity that there was an experiment of sorts to see how free will would be played out.

I think we had more understanding before the event and possibly a way different brain structure where the left and right hemispheres in the brain were more able to assess situations in a complimentary manner. Taking facts and intuitive reasoning together which is where much of our learning has evolved to enhance. We aren't content with simple creativity, full intuitive that doesn't have some of the logic and structure that is truth. We want both.

I do believe in God, but I don't know how all the details work out. Got a wait and see attitude. Science is something I rely on and yet, especially at the quantum level, I think it's safe to say there is a possibility of there being more to life than just what we already know. Some of that can include a being of light and energy and creativity that can be in touch with the living beings it "breathed life into" at some point.

I'm still inclined to live responsibly and not ignore global warming. I don't want "creationism" taught in school, because I think faith is for people who believe and belongs in Church. I think theoretical science will someday find the evidence of God and we'll all go, "OH, so that's how it works." But until then, it's just another theory, not hard science and I don't expect others to spend their time refuting an unproved theory.

As a Christian, my goal is to keep my own self in line with my beliefs and not force them on others. I hope I can be a good example and a good neighbor to others.

[cbayer]

129. Welcome to the Religion Group, Tigress DEM.

Enjoyed your thoughtful and unique perspective on this.

[Tigress DEM]

135. Thanks!

[orpupilofnature57]

130. Until we develop another mode of communication

" Talking points " are our only vehicle, but good to hear your's, Thanks.

[Tigress DEM]

133. On 2nd glance. I call Original Sin, Original Spin. The Innate Desire for Knowledge is curative.

What is original sin, "the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil" TO KNOW what is Good and what is Evil without really taking anything into consideration, to me is to go around judging things out of context and making things worse.

BETTER is to find the path to healing, the way to mend the wrongs and bring the community into wholeness.

If something happens that is so bad and hurtful that it must be removed, then of course, but to see from many angles, not just the one. THIS is always right. THAT is always wrong. Absolutes like that tend to cause no end of trouble on their own.

[Shadowflash]

62. Better yet --

--Where did God come from? One can't create one's self.

[Angry Dragon]

63. That is a question for another day

Thank you for the idea ...............

[spin]

66. It would be an interesting question and would lead to an entertaining debate. ...

Another good question might be:

If there is an afterlife in a better place and time (heaven for example) will a good person of a different religion than yours be entitled to enjoy it?

[orpupilofnature57]

105. The great unknown

[orpupilofnature57]

104. Why not, look at Madonna

I wasn't there during the Big Bang, were you?

[Shadowflash]

107. I was not

But as people are so fond of saying - Something can't come from nothing.

[orpupilofnature57]

113. With people only tangible, measurable, provable things

exist. Anti-matter, Ambiguous emotions and chemical reactions and all the other " Deep Field " objects might come from nothing that we CAN prove, I CAN'T say in all certainty .

[vlyons]

90. God is a concept -- in your mind

There is no creator god. Evil is another mental concept. If you mean evil as in tornados, predator animals eating prey, fires, earthquakes, floods, etc; those aren't evil. If you mean cruelty and sadistic human behavior, well that's evil. And the better question is why are some people cruel?

[orpupilofnature57]

103. As Lincoln called it " Our darker Angels "

[orpupilofnature57]

101. God

[Angry Dragon]

102. Thank you for your answer

[spin]

111. A question. Do you believe in the existence of a creator or supreme being?

[Angry Dragon]

115. I fail to see what that has to do with the OP question, however

I will answer your question


There are forces at work in the universe. Are these god or gods?? Don't know.
I find it hard to believe that the god of the Bible exists. A god that takes a personal interest of the Earth.
Still searching............

[spin]

116. I feel that's a fair reply. ...

I also feel that this thread has been interesting and educational.

[cbayer]

118. I think there are a lot of people who see things as you do and

you put it very well.

[Angry Dragon]

120. Thank you

[Tigress DEM]

127. I think in simple terms. God created order out of chaos. Chaos still exists.

Some part of chaos is seeking to destroy the order that was built.

In the Bible, it says the original evil came from Lucifer who was the most beautiful angel and was basically jealous of the competition for God's love that the human's presented.

I personally think the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" and the "Tree of Life" were not planted by God at all, but by Lucifer putting a bit of a bite into "free choice". There is some evidence that biologically we had some sort of membrane connecting the right and left halves of our brains. I think that whatever happened affected that and we think in "black and white" or "intuitively" but not both at once any more.

Like a bad drug once our thoughts were messed up we had to leave the garden because before that, we had power to make things happen. Tree of Life would have probably been some sort of zombie state inducing drug/fruit that would have left us forever "broken" mentally.

In order for free thinking humans to evolve back to that higher state we are living in this world making choices and seeing the results. When a person stays tuned into "Love others as you love yourself," as a guideline decisions are made without the evil intent. It is predicated on the idea that you do care about yourself as a basis.

[LARED]

136. God did.