all 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 2 hours ago

this bug was replaced with new in Islam !

  • source
  • [+] -8 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

    It's like a Democrat arguing with a Republican. Predictably it doesn't matter which one you choose to be which.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    Are both sides proposing legislation to monitor micro plastics in drinking water?

    Are both sides proposing improving anti trust laws?

    Are both sides trying to protect trans people and abortion rights?

    Or is it that you're so privileged that both sides seem the same to you because neither one affects you personally?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -18 points 4 hours ago

    "Narcissist" is an ableist slur with a history rooted in aphobia

  • source
  • [–] 67 points 15 hours ago (31 children)

    “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 14 hours ago* (10 children)

    i think the common argument for this (not that i agree with it) is that God just see evil differently? i.e. you mere mortals think something is evil doesn't mean god does too.

    (and this argument then becomes circular and unfalsifiable, that's why i think it's dumb).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 14 hours ago (6 children)

    Not currently religious, but my understanding at the time was not that he didn't think things could be evil, though obviously we might see things like death as "evil" and he might not. It's that in order for us to "deserve" good things, we need to prove we are worthy. The only way to prove that is to allow us to do the wrong thing so that we can of our own free will choose the right thing instead. The question would then be why would you create beings with free will knowing some of them will inevitably suffer forever and the answer is generally "I'm god, who the heck are you to question me?" or some stupid explanation about how free will existing is itself a good that god did and therefore even if we choose evil every time we make a choice we are still engaging in a universal "good". Religions do obviously differ though, so everyone likely learned things a little differently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • The problem is when you think about free evils (evils that suppose no possible learning opportunity or some bullshit lile that).

    Also, other problem is that, why would he create an infinite pain place for when we make decisions he doesn't like?

    There's this explanation that the point is we're the ones creating that eternal punishment with our actions, that's what logically follows from rejecting its "love"; but, not to mention that then it's completely toxic, completely egomaniacal, narcissistic, pathologically jealous, and psychopathic love, the biggest problem is, who's supposed to have created logic and set up which causes produce which effects and what logically follows from what, according to religion? Right. "god".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

    thanks for elaborating! i've never been religious so i only have a surface understanding of these stuffs. and honestly i kinda dislike it when fellow atheists throw out the "bUt wHAt abOUt eVil?" as the gotcha to try to prove that religions cannot be logical. but generally speaking religions can be logical and quite self-consistent in fact, and the question ultimately will be "what do you believe" which can't be empirically tested anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

    What about aggressive cancer in young children?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 8 hours ago (5 children)

    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

    That's a huge leap.

    My coworkers smoke. I could take away their cigarettes and put them in the trash. Am I malevolent for not doing so?

    If I did, I would be considered malevolent for infringing on their personal freedom.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

    It depends on who has power over who ... you don't have power or control over your coworker ... they could slap you in face for taking away their cigarettes ... and if they are strong and violent enough, they could punch you in face and knock you out

    God may or may not have power over us and if they did, they'd snap their fingers and put us out of existence ... which is why the paradox makes you think ... if God is all powerful, why don't they do things to make things better ... because if they don't, then they don't care ... and if they can't, why call them God?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    Or God is just an extreme emotion masochist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago

    I also like the thought that God might also be a child who just accidentally created everything, didn't know and just forgot about everything.

    Our reality might be just a forgotten game save by a kid who has played and is continuing to play endless game files

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago* (1 child)

    In this scenario, who's performing an evil act if you're not willing to stop it? The smokers?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago

    I've been a smoker. The kind of damage I have been inflicting on myself over decades of smoking is crazy. The addiction makes you ignore a lot of warning signs.

    So I guess my comment stems from the situation I find myself in now: I feel guilty because I can't do more to help the people around me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 10 hours ago (11 children)

    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

    This is not a necessary conclusion. Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do anything whatsoever, but the ability to do everything that is possible. Since God is Love, he could not create something distinct from himself unless his creation were at least capable of not loving. Evil is simply a consequence of creation’s capacity for unlovingness. So he's not able to prevent evil even if he's willing to, but he's still is omnipotent of the word is correctly defined. If you want to keep the maximalist definition then I, as a Christian, will cheerfully say that God is not omnipotent. But it's just a wordplay.

    I'm ready to respectfully discuss this idea, but will ignore any disrespectful or insulting message.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    if "omnipotent" doesn't mean "can do literally anything", then "real" doesn't necessarily mean "exists in our reality" either.

    You can squirm and manipulate the terms however you'd like, just know that nobody in the right mind would take your words seriously if you do that. If a manual needs to be interpreted, it's a bad manual. Any religion is just a fiction, pretending to be non-fiction. Same kinda thing as horrors with "based on real events" tagline, just turned up a few notches.

    If a fiction needs interpretation and head-canons to be coherent, it's a bad fiction. The Bible is just bad from a literary standpoint, fiction or non-fiction. Its authors failed miserably at portraying a being that is so potent, it created literally everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 hours ago

    What do you believe is his reason for creating people? He placed the tree of knowledge to give us choice, but in doing so opened the pathway to suffering. Why create beings with free will in the first place and give them the opportunity to hurt themselves or others.

    If I bred and trained some puppies to not step on red floor tiles and then put them in a room where stepping on a red floor tile caused them to be set on fire or something, people would (in my opinion rightfully) suggest I was being unnecessarily cruel. I could make plenty of arguments as to why I'm in the right "I'm the reason they're here so I get to decide the conditions of their existence" or "I trained them first so I'm just seeing if they'll follow directions", but I don't think anyone would think I'm in the right. It feels somewhat like that's what god did. He made us fallible and gave us plenty of ways and reasons to fail. What is your interpretation of why?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 hours ago

    In the Christian biblical sense and beliefs of creation ... God created everything out of nothing ... which implies that they are capable of creating and controlling everything ... the story of Noah is God deciding he didn't like his creation so they hit the reset button and wiped everyone out

    So now we live in a world where so many terrible things are happening ... sure there are many good things and good people but there are also an overwhelming number of bad people and bad things making this world very, very uncomfortable ... so where is God? Things are worse (or just as bad) now than they were before the biblical flood ... so why hasn't God stepped in to either make things better - or hit the reset button again.

    Which then begs the question of the paradox and asks where is God, what are they doing, and why aren't they doing anything?... and leads to the ultimate question about God ... do they actually exist?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago*

    I think your read on omnipotence is tautological. As a Christian, you are familiar with your god's resume: virgin birth, transubstantiation, worldwide simultaneous flood, resurrections, spontaneous healing of leprosy, temporary parting of the sea, hardening hearts, etc. What is canonically outside of his power?

    Also your sentence about god being love and not being able to create... unless... Is not very clear to me. How can infinite love divide itself into unlove?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

    I can do everything that's possible for me. Am I omnipotent?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

    No. Omnipotence is the ability to do everything possible, regardless of who or what is acting. The limitation is on the reality side, not on the actor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 10 hours ago* (2 children)

    Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do anything whatsoever, but the ability to do everything that is possible.

    Omni - all, potent - powerful/able. All powerful. Having unlimited or universal power. You can of course interpret as you want, but words are words and they have meaning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 14 hours ago*

    I've always subscribed to the idea that Lucifer was the good guy that tried to overthrow God but lost. He got A THIRD of the angels backing him. That's not insignificant. Shit was going on and people were unhappy.

    Even though the Bible is written by the victor, it somehow still manages to show how fucking evil God is.

    The Abrahamic religions and their followers are completely nuts or simply just don't know much about their faith.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 15 hours ago

    Good ol' Gnostic beliefs. Christianity used to have quite a few of 'em... Until... y'know... all the Christian murdering. For centuries.

    Absolute shitheel of a people.

  • source