The Evil of god

Forums: Religion, God, Science, Intelligent Design, Atheism
Email this Topic • Print this Page

My contention is that the believe in a god, especially without proof is inherantly destructive to humankind. Any good that might result is overwhelmingly subplanted by the tremendous evil that occurs.
Man has sufficiently progressed in knowledge to recognize what rules are beneficial to society without the having to succumb to unproductive and harmful superstition.
The belief in a punishing hell and a rewarding heaven and the promise of eternal life after death diminishes mankind and his exsistance.
Imagine life without the yoke of opression that is god and religion.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 14,260 • Replies: 155

[+3] - Smileyrius - 03/29/2015I'm afraid not, I know of no rational men

@giujohn,

I don't disagree with you entirely but you seem to be quite mad. Your are railing against stuff I stopped paying attention to years ago. that I and others pay no attention to.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

I agree with ossobuco to a large extent. However you should be aware of two points.

1. Given its historically ubiquitous and persistent presence, some form of "religion" appears to be a socially reinforced natural psychological outcome of our cognitive abilities relative to other species, associated with "filling the gaps" in our pre-occupation with our limited control over our lives.

2. Some would argue that the very concepts of "good" and "evil" are essentially religious in nature irrespective of their linkage or otherwise with a deity. Even atheists (like me) are inevitably saddled with vestiges of "religious language" in thought processes. (Note that the anthropomorphic concept of "altruism" as applied to some other species can be explained quite simply in terms of evolutionary or social expediency and there seems to be no reason why this does not also apply to humans too).

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

My contention is that the believe in a god, especially without proof is inherantly destructive to humankind. Any good that might result is overwhelmingly subplanted by the tremendous evil that occurs.
Man has sufficiently progressed in knowledge to recognize what rules are beneficial to society without the having to succumb to unproductive and harmful superstition.
The belief in a punishing hell and a rewarding heaven and the promise of eternal life after death diminishes mankind and his exsistance.
Imagine life without the yoke of opression that is god and religion.

A bit more care with your presentation would help your arguments, John.

"Belief" (guessing) that there is a GOD...is just one of the possible guesses that can be made on the issue...and the notion that this particular guess is "inherently destructive to humankind" seems to me to be hyperbole.

In any case, one can guess there is a GOD as part of REALITY...and not guess that the "punishing Hell and rewarding Heaven" must be part of that guess.

The suggestion that guessing there is a punishing Hell and a rewarding Heaven...or "eternal life"...somehow necessarily diminishs humankind or human existence...seems to be further hyperbole.

All of those things MAY be a part of REALITY...and we are what we are. (If you are asserting there are no gods, do so...and we can discuss that.)

I can "imagine life without the yoke of religious oppression"...and can easily imagine other kinds of oppression.

I do agree with you that the negatives of religion seem to outweigh the positives...but that is a personal bias, and I recognize and acknowledge it as such.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank...its difficult to respond to you in that you have not shown me proof that you in fact exsit in this reality.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Mad? No. Dismayed? Yes. When so many are deluded its hard not to care. And as a diversion, I'm fascinated with a look into those deluded minds via their responses.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

1. Given its historically ubiquitous and persistent presence, some form of "religion" appears to be a socially reinforced natural psychological outcome of our cognitive abilities relative to other species, associated with "filling the gaps" in our pre-occupation with our limited control over our lives.

I believe you are right that religion is a socially reinforced, but I also think it has evolved over time to be self-reinforcing based on personal emotions (outside of society) as well.

I believe religion originally developed from neolithic man's attempts to understand nature. They lived in a world without most of the knowledge that we today take for granted, and without that knowledge I think it was only natural for them to theorize anthropomorphic causes for the things they observed. Such a behavior is basically the Scientific Process but without the restriction to Naturalism as a baseline.

Over time, the simpler and naturalistic explanations began to prove more functional and accurate than the supernatural explanations until the process was codified into a Scientific Methodology which produced the highest level of functionality and accuracy. But by then the Supernatural structures had already codified into religions which were producing a cultural functionality of group cohesion and hierarchical control for the "priests" in various forms. After that, religion was self-perpetuating and self-refining toward those goals.

0 Replies

@giujohn,

Having reread, I hope you took it that by 'mad' I meant angry, not crazed in some way.

I'm yet another atheist on a2k, of the supposed soft kind in that I am sans belief in a god or gods, as in a-theism. As in a blank on that. But - way back when I left religion behind, I was angry. I remember being in the Mexico City area and going with pals to see the Guadalupe church. We were a group of young women who had known each other for some years, and the others were believers. I didn't go in, cried outside, not from regret, but anger.

That all passed, to the point where near fifty years later, I see religion's role for many, and some of that fine with me, like the impetus to do good works (although I'd rather those be done out of plain kindness, but, hey), and for the comfort and sometimes joy it can bring many. I still eye roll or despair about the bad effects of religion on masses of people. Well, you know about that emotion, I will guess.

Nods along with rosborne.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Yeah...lol, I wondered at first if ya ment crazy but figured it was angry. Really its mostly sad not mad.
You see, I'm a convinced atheist. I have no doubt that not only doesnt god exist he cant exist. And I base that on emperical evidence. (although Frank cant see it) And I marvel at otherwise intelligent people when they allow some invisable boogeyman to control their lives. Its sad, but equally fascinating.

2 Replies

@giujohn,

As a fellow atheist I would advise you that existential claims based on "evidence" are open to accusations of naive realism. What constitutes evidence tends to be contextual (paradigmatic) and open to negotiation. This is why I have always advocated a relativistic (pragmatic) view of "existence" rather than an absolutist one since the latter is little different from absolutist religious claims.

You might find this Rorty lecture interesting if you are unfamiliar with the views of pragmatists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk

1 Reply

@fresco,

All religious text agree that god is (and I maintain, must be) omnipotant and included in that, omniscience.
The evidence is compelling in that it proves conclusively that an omniscient being would preclude the existance of our universe and physics as we known it.
Omniscience would violate Hiesenbergs Uncertainty Principle and not allow the formation of the universe and all in it.
I find it unreasonable that anyone would label that as naive.
Unlike a hypothesis, a principle is not negotible. HUP is a basic law of nature that can not be changed. For if it could we would cease to exist.
Simply put: the notion of an all knowing god is perposterous!

2 Replies

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

Frank...its difficult to respond to you in that you have not shown me proof that you in fact exsit in this reality.

Nobody here has furnished you with that proof.

All of the world you suppose exists...may be an illusion.

If that truly is a problem rather than a cowardly way of getting out of responding...you have to leave, since you have no proof of anyone existing.

3 Replies

@giujohn,

You misunderstand the term "naive realism". It is a technical term which denotes the dualistic view that there is "a universe out there" whose existence is independent of the biases or actions of what we call "observers". Reconsider Heisenberg with respect to a contrary view that "evidence of the universe" is observer related. Thomas Kuhn's "paradigms" are equally significant significant at the macro-level.
Note that the problem of observer-observed interaction is largely ignored by mainstream science, but is sufficiently problematic to warrant a field of study of its own termed "second order cybernetics" and alternative (non-informational) views of biology such as "autopoiesis". Note too that the dichotomy subject-object as embodied in Cartesian philosophy ( dualism) has come under fire from modern movements such as Rorty's Neopragmatism.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Having reread, I hope you took it that by 'mad' I meant angry, not crazed in some way.

I'm yet another atheist on a2k, of the supposed soft kind in that I am sans belief in a god or gods, as in a-theism.

The word "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE theism...and did not have its etymology in "a-theism."

0 Replies

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

Yeah...lol, I wondered at first if ya ment crazy but figured it was angry. Really its mostly sad not mad.
You see, I'm a convinced atheist. I have no doubt that not only doesnt god exist he cant exist. And I base that on emperical evidence. (although Frank cant see it) And I marvel at otherwise intelligent people when they allow some invisable boogeyman to control their lives. Its sad, but equally fascinating.

Yeah...it is your firm blind guess that no gods exist...and cannot exist.

No problem with that...and it would be even better if you would grow up enough to acknowledge that your blind guesses are nothing more than blind guesses.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

All religious text agree that god is (and I maintain, must be) omnipotant and included in that, omniscience.
The evidence is compelling in that it proves conclusively that an omniscient being would preclude the existance of our universe and physics as we known it.
Omniscience would violate Hiesenbergs Uncertainty Principle and not allow the formation of the universe and all in it.
I find it unreasonable that anyone would label that as naive.
Unlike a hypothesis, a principle is not negotible. HUP is a basic law of nature that can not be changed. For if it could we would cease to exist.
Simply put: the notion of an all knowing god is perposterous!

ALL religious texts???

You have read all religious texts?

Okay...here is one religious text that doesn't:

A god does not have to be omnipotent or omniscient. Book of Frank: 1:1-2

Oh, one other thing. Basing things on what religious texts say...really is not especially bright. Some religious texts say things that are probably incorrect. You do realize that, right?

Jeez.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Where's the evidence for this contention?

That reminds me of Marxism, which became another religion... :-)

1 Reply

@giujohn,

only if you believe that Mankind is capable of running itself. At best Mankind would go back to living in the caves and eating cadavers and maggot collecting, and killing eachother. Well, only if you believe Mankind can figure things out or can do anything by itself. Prometheus doesn't have to help them at all, "out of pity."

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

All of the world you suppose exists...may be an illusion.

. . . or a dream!

(Don't mind me. I'm just having a little fun! Drunk

The Evil of god

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know