Posts by Gregory Carter67

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

I gotta be honest—I'm not really following you. What are you actually getting at? Could you break that down for me?

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

I mean, I don't know—you tell me. Why exactly is that a flawed argument? Sure, an animal doesn't have the same level of consciousness—they’re basically operating on pure instinct—but they can still feel pain just like any human can. When I talk about suffering, that's specifically what I'm getting at. My point is this: if we're going to complain, we could honestly find something to whine about every single second of our lives, depending on how you look at it. You didn't actually address the "freedom of life" part of my argument, either. I don't see how you're even picturing a free life without the room to mess up.

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

We’re circling back to the same loop again—and then people go ahead and label God as evil. Look, I already said it: God allows evil to happen. I’m not denying that He permits it—and honestly, it doesn't seem like any of you are either. The only real difference is that you can't wrap your heads around a God like that. You're expecting a world that’s perfectly manicured, totally devoid of decay, sin, or any kind of darkness. But here's the catch—if you actually want to scrub evil out of existence, you can't do it halfway. To get a world without evil, there can't be even a single stray thought of malice, not one murder, not one moment of lust, not a hint of greed or theft. If we're talking about a world truly free of evil, perfection is the only setting. And that brings us to a world without freedom. Because if you aren't capable of making a mistake—if the option to fail isn't even on the table—then your ability to act is basically neutralized. Your entire experience changes. In other words, it just wouldn't be this world anymore. Not this world of flesh and blood—the world of birth, growth, decay, and death.

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

Not true. We’re talking about the real world—the actual struggles people deal with every single day. Nobody in the Bible ever promised that life on this planet would be smooth sailing or free from sin. That kind of perfection is only mentioned as a possibility for eternal life, not for our current existence here on Earth.

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

That’s a massive mistake right there—I honestly don't get where you're coming from. Why on earth would you try to picture life on Earth as some kind of paradise? It just doesn't work that way. Not with all the sin running rampant and the evil we're dealing with every day.

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

Not quite. Paradise isn't some destination in this fleeting, messy world of sin and moral tug-of-war—this life is just a facade. It’s basically just the stage set for the real thing happening behind the curtain.

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

Look, you guys aren't actually making statements of faith here—you're just giving affirmations. You're basically saying you can accept that God exists, but you just can't stomach the reality of this world being so broken. You can't wrap your heads around how decaying and messy everything is—the fact that this isn't some earthly paradise where life is easy and sweet. Why is that, I wonder?

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

Maybe you guys aren't reading between the lines enough if you think that's the only way He's portrayed. I mean, there's plenty of talk about getting beaten in paradise, too. It's like how our parents used to lay a hand on us—for our own good, obviously—just so we wouldn't grow up being rude or disrespectful.

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

As a believer, I can tell you you're dead wrong on this one. I don't view God as dead; He's alive. Honestly, according to the Bible, that's something every believer should know and accept.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

Fair point. That's usually what people have in mind anyway.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

The real question is: what counts as evil? Death, pain, decay? If we follow that logic, every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a cosmic intervention to prevent its tragedy. On what basis would a human be considered a more valuable being (assuming there's no God for the atheist)? In a way, it leads to the idea that life—as free as it is, complete with mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, and death—can only exist in a system where errors are permitted. And maybe those errors are exactly what the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

We can't ever truly know what anyone else wants or doesn't want. Maybe there's a different goal entirely. People can speculate all they want, but they'll never have proof.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

Here’s where we diverge: why does the existence of evil necessarily imply God isn't there? This is the exact point I always hammer home with my atheist buddies—nobody ever promised us a life of milk and honey in the revealed religions. No one said everything would be perfect or run smoothly. My counter-question is this: why shouldn't evil exist, and how do you even envision a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans couldn't mess up, the whole process of decay would have to vanish; basically, such a world couldn't exist in a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys imagine freedom without the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life—it's not actually livingly free.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong target here. You don't need to justify a higher power to a lower one; you should probably flip the script. Look at how many people do absolutely nothing. They claim God allows evil—famine, death, disease—and then those same people sit idly by while others starve or suffer. They totally have the ability to help. It's an interesting irony. So yeah—God allowed evil. He also allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in the greatest righteous man ever, His own Son, dying on a cross for our sins. That's exactly what shows God is sending a message to us. Whether people actually listen and make sense of what He's trying to say is up to them. But people tend to assume they hold all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

The issue is simply how you define "all-good" or "evil" in a precise, detailed way. If you don't factor in morality, decay, and the entire natural world—not just human suffering—then it looks like humans are just being incredibly self-centered. God permits both life and death, wealth and poverty. As for God leading people into wars, there are several ways to look at that. To God, giving or taking life isn't a big deal. At the end of the day, He can create or wipe out thousands of lives in a single breath. Sometimes victims serve as a warning to others. Sometimes it's for something else entirely. But God allows both good and evil for reasons known only to Him. At least, that's what the Bible says. Anyone claiming otherwise clearly hasn't read it.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

Honestly, I think this is a weak angle for an atheist to take because it treats God like some guy walking around on Earth. If you add the layer that someone is intentionally twisting a Bible verse or misrepresenting a scene just to score points, then you’ve just got two sides shouting nonsense at each other. It reminds me of those old sayings about how silence can be louder than words when things get heated. There are endless examples of that. To me, using the Bible as a primary weapon is kind of a losing game for an atheist—the text itself usually works against their own point. These debates feel pretty pointless and, frankly, a bit childish.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

Those free will arguments have been around forever—classic debates between Catholics and Protestants—and they’re much more mature since they actually deal with philosophy.

Cheers!

brisksurfer3 said:The core premise here is that God exists, which would mean atheism should be treated as a behavioral disorder.

Either way, it’s not looking good.

Look, I started this thread—and trust me, that wasn't the premise—so I have no clue where you even got that idea. Even if someone is pissed off about something, I don't go around calling it a behavioral disorder.

casualtiger2 said:Here’s yet another one of those hundred repetitive religion threads being dragged over here.
I can already see the predictable headlines coming—"Are atheists sick and immoral?", "Is Jesus Christ God?", or the Islamic variations like "Can God have a son?", followed by "Was Mary truly a virgin?" and "How did Allah/Muhammad control the Moon and make Mars sing Hallelujah..."

Since believers love to believe—take my word for it—there isn't a single logical argument that’s going to make your narrative or faith make sense to someone looking for actual spirituality (unless they're under 12, and even then, I wouldn't bet on it).
Unfortunately, the odds of believers even slightly questioning their stances or pseudo-logical arguments are basically zero.
At worst, you just end up fueling more resentment toward various church dogmas, religious institutions, and fanaticism—none of which actually has anything to do with God, if He exists at all.
The very premises used in these discussions about atheism or agnosticism show either a total lack of basic understanding or pure bad faith—both of which are terrible foundations for a debate. Personally, I hope as few people as possible find themselves stuck in this kind of "dialogue."

Look, I’m pretty sure if the admins saw this, they’d shut it down immediately—but since the examples you brought up are strictly religious, I doubt anyone is actually diving deep into individual spirituality without it devolving into a massive theological shouting match. Besides, those topics are purely theological. Take something like "was Mary truly a virgin?"—that doesn't belong in a "spirituality" thread. You could frame it as Mariology or perhaps spiritual contemplation regarding her, but the way you titled it suggests people are just going to dump their religious dogmas and theological stances into the comments. And honestly, you can't really stop people from posting whatever pops into their heads. Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting we debate specific religions in my original question, and I definitely won't be posting stuff like that here. P.S. I don't think atheists are sick or immoral.

casualtiger2 said:Here’s yet another one of those hundred repetitive religion threads being dragged over here.
I can already see the predictable headlines coming—"Are atheists sick and immoral?", "Is Jesus Christ God?", or the Islamic variations like "Can God have a son?", followed by "Was Mary truly a virgin?" and "How did Allah/Muhammad control the Moon and make Mars sing Hallelujah..."

Since believers love to believe—take my word for it—there isn't a single logical argument that’s going to make your narrative or faith make sense to someone looking for actual spirituality (unless they're under 12, and even then, I wouldn't bet on it).
Unfortunately, the odds of believers even slightly questioning their stances or pseudo-logical arguments are basically zero.
At worst, you just end up fueling more resentment toward various church dogmas, religious institutions, and fanaticism—none of which actually has anything to do with God, if He exists at all.
The very premises used in these discussions about atheism or agnosticism show either a total lack of basic understanding or pure bad faith—both of which are terrible foundations for a debate. Personally, I hope as few people as possible find themselves stuck in this kind of "dialogue."

Fair enough. You can claim someone doesn't have a basic grasp of the subject—just like people probably claim you don't. It’s funny how easy it is to label someone’s perspective as "ignorance," though, especially when you get to decide which specific topic they're supposedly clueless about. To each their own, I guess. But let's be real: when you've got two sides clashing on a forum, you aren't exactly going to harvest any wisdom from it. It’s basically just a digital flea market—lots of noise, plenty of chatter, and not much of substance.

The only real issue here is that people actually bother reading this stuff—which is honestly pretty depressing. Most of these posters seem to think they’re doing society some massive favor, but let’s be real: looking at the dialogues on this forum, it’s basically just intellectual bankruptcy 90% of the time.

Gerald Hill said:This is such a wonderful and beneficial topic, especially for those struggling with digestive issues. Thank you so much for sharing this!

Hopefully things keep moving along smoothly.

darkraven said:People who claim to believe in God but absolutely loathe Him, or those calling themselves atheists when they really aren't, are basically just confused misotheists or dystheists.

Bottom line, Nicole James is spot on here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villain

Look, if you have a moral compass and some fictional character does something that goes against everything you stand for, you’ve got every right and freedom to label them as bad or evil. It's basic logic.

And in the real world, what philosophers call the "problem of evil" is a legitimate issue, and it is a valid argument against the existence of a God with certain specific attributes. There are plenty of other similar arguments out there too. So what if someone finds one of those convincing? Does that automatically turn them into some closeted believer who’s just acting out of spite against God? Give me a break.

I'm with you on that.

darkraven said:People who claim to believe in God but absolutely loathe Him, or those calling themselves atheists when they really aren't, are basically just confused misotheists or dystheists.

Bottom line, Nicole James is spot on here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villain

Look, if you have a moral compass and some fictional character does something that goes against everything you stand for, you’ve got every right and freedom to label them as bad or evil. It's basic logic.

And in the real world, what philosophers call the "problem of evil" is a legitimate issue, and it is a valid argument against the existence of a God with certain specific attributes. There are plenty of other similar arguments out there too. So what if someone finds one of those convincing? Does that automatically turn them into some closeted believer who’s just acting out of spite against God? Give me a break.

That shouldn't even be the starting point for debating God—or anything else about how the world works. Honestly, if that’s someone's "big idea," who am I to judge? But if they're leaning on that as their primary proof for (or against) His existence, then we’re heading straight into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the messy reality of life—the good, the bad, and everything in between. Maybe the issue isn't the universe, but just having the wrong expectations of it. Who actually decided life should be like hitting the Powerball jackpot? Nobody said it had to be all milk and honey.

I’m not saying anyone here is some closeted believer—I just meant they might not even realize they have a spark of faith themselves. I honestly wasn't implying people were faking anything. But look, I truly believe there are folks out there who simply don't believe. Period. I only brought this up because I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one sitting here feeling this way.

Nicole James said:I honestly wouldn't be surprised if people used characters from fairy tales, fables, religious myths, and other works of fiction as a basis for making moral judgments—even without actually believing those stories are true.

I wouldn't believe it—didn't say I couldn't.

Watching debates and scrolling through discussions by certain atheists, I get the feeling they’re actually more like believers—even if they claim otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they definitely deny God's existence.

Take this, for example. Someone brings up a religious text. A hardcore atheist usually jumps in specifically to paint that book as bad, low-key violent, or just plain useless. From what I've seen with most of them, they tend to say things like:

"If I believed in God, I'd think He was evil, or a tyrant..." and so on and so forth.

The thing that sticks out to me is the hidden assumption there. The second someone says, "If I believed in God," they're showing at least a tiny shred of doubt—like they might actually believe a little. To me, a true atheist would never even bother with that kind of phrasing or description, because they simply "don't believe." Why would an atheist spend any mental energy pondering God’s image or trying to define His character when they supposedly don't believe in Him? That "supposedly" suggests the reality might be different:

1. A person denies God, but the question is whether they truly don't believe (maybe they do, deep down, but they're suppressing it and aren't even aware of it).
2. A person is mostly just angry at God because of how things clash with the laws of the universe (the fact that we're mortal, everything decays, the refusal to accept that there's a higher power meant to judge humans, etc.).
3. Certain atheists who go as far as calling themselves "militant" atheists (?) (not everyone in the first two groups, obviously); they are, quite literally, militant about their stance. What's funny is that if they really didn't believe, there’d be no reason to be militant. Being antagonistic toward something that doesn't exist makes zero sense. It smells like hidden resentment—maybe some sort of father complex where they just can't accept God as a Father figure. Something like that.

There's also this interesting phenomenon of bitterness. I've noticed plenty of non-believers seem resentful toward religious texts, portraying them through caricatures of beautiful religious verses (making them look way different than they actually are) or being super selective about what they read and comment on. They love highlighting the darker passages to use as "proof" for their atheism.

It feels like their main argument, even though logic should be the priority here. When it comes to the existence of a Creator, no one should be relying on a religious book as their primary argument over logic and philosophy.

And then there's the question of a higher power itself. The Creator of space, time, matter, transience, and so on. Who or what triggered the Big Bang? Why? What existed before the Big Bang?

I've seen this mindset—prioritizing side issues over actual core arguments—quite a bit.

A guy I know (a die-hard atheist) told me his most accurate definition of atheism was that "God most likely doesn't exist." He used "most likely" in the same way scientists use it for theories that are 99.x% certain—basically treated as 100% for all intents and purposes. That was how he felt, but he wanted to be technically precise. To him, that was a more accurate definition than just saying "there is no God." He viewed everything through a strictly scientific lens. Honestly, from his perspective as both an atheist and a scientist, his answer was logical since you can't prove or disprove God's existence. In that sense, he sounded like a real atheist to me. But in other instances, he could sound incredibly bitter about trivial things. Almost aggressive. I never got around to asking him more about it.

My question is: what do you guys think about the idea that atheists might actually believe (perhaps without even knowing it) but are essentially just denying God because they feel a sense of hostility toward Him?

Andrew Parker86 said:I just received a newsletter from Inoptimum regarding a truly fascinating subject—Akashi. It claims that through access to Akashi, one can learn absolutely everything; every event past and future, and everything concerning oneself. Does anyone happen to have more information on this, or perhaps know how one might gain access to Akashi? Here is the link ->

http://www.inoptimum.com/index.asp?23,3829,1

Sounds too good to be true. You get a newsletter, and suddenly that newsletter is making you question your entire spiritual vibe. I've heard plenty of theories, but this is a new one.

Donna White50 said:Your logic is a bit flawed right out of the gate. You're assuming life and its characteristics are "gifts," but why would they be gifts? And why would a human be any more significant than the stardust we actually came from? We tend to blow the significance of life way out of proportion, but life is really just a cycle of evolution, starting from the creation of the first atom and moving forward from there... We overinflate ourselves because our ego makes us feel important, driving us to fight evolutionarily just to keep the cycle going.
Asking why we walk the earth or why we live isn't any more profound than asking about the existence of an atom or a subatomic particle—it's all tied to the laws governing our universe. The idea of God or a higher power is really just a reflection of our subjective need to make the world and our lives feel meaningful, comforting, and satisfying.
Is the universe itself meaningful, including us walking the earth? Probably, but "meaning" is just a human concept. Other beings don't lose sleep over finding meaning. Maybe meaning is just an illusion, much like our perception of time passing...

I already touched on this "gifts" thing with someone else earlier, so I won't repeat myself.

Donna White50 said:Your logic is a bit flawed right out of the gate. You're assuming life and its characteristics are "gifts," but why would they be gifts? And why would a human be any more significant than the stardust we actually came from? We tend to blow the significance of life way out of proportion, but life is really just a cycle of evolution, starting from the creation of the first atom and moving forward from there... We overinflate ourselves because our ego makes us feel important, driving us to fight evolutionarily just to keep the cycle going.
Asking why we walk the earth or why we live isn't any more profound than asking about the existence of an atom or a subatomic particle—it's all tied to the laws governing our universe. The idea of God or a higher power is really just a reflection of our subjective need to make the world and our lives feel meaningful, comforting, and satisfying.
Is the universe itself meaningful, including us walking the earth? Probably, but "meaning" is just a human concept. Other beings don't lose sleep over finding meaning. Maybe meaning is just an illusion, much like our perception of time passing...

Well, if atoms and particles are what make us up, then at the end of the day, it's the exact same question.

Donna White50 said:Your logic is a bit flawed right out of the gate. You're assuming life and its characteristics are "gifts," but why would they be gifts? And why would a human be any more significant than the stardust we actually came from? We tend to blow the significance of life way out of proportion, but life is really just a cycle of evolution, starting from the creation of the first atom and moving forward from there... We overinflate ourselves because our ego makes us feel important, driving us to fight evolutionarily just to keep the cycle going.
Asking why we walk the earth or why we live isn't any more profound than asking about the existence of an atom or a subatomic particle—it's all tied to the laws governing our universe. The idea of God or a higher power is really just a reflection of our subjective need to make the world and our lives feel meaningful, comforting, and satisfying.
Is the universe itself meaningful, including us walking the earth? Probably, but "meaning" is just a human concept. Other beings don't lose sleep over finding meaning. Maybe meaning is just an illusion, much like our perception of time passing...

That’s a fair answer if you're an agnostic. But you have to ask: why should something be considered "comforting" or "satisfying" in the first place? Why does it have to carry that emotional weight? You could flip the script and argue that anything *isn't* better just because it's comforting. And as for this being a "subjective need"—nobody can actually know or prove that, so nobody can claim it as fact. When it comes to the afterlife, people shouldn't interpret things just to guess what someone else thinks. That definitely isn't a scientific approach.

Donna White50 said:Your logic is a bit flawed right out of the gate. You're assuming life and its characteristics are "gifts," but why would they be gifts? And why would a human be any more significant than the stardust we actually came from? We tend to blow the significance of life way out of proportion, but life is really just a cycle of evolution, starting from the creation of the first atom and moving forward from there... We overinflate ourselves because our ego makes us feel important, driving us to fight evolutionarily just to keep the cycle going.
Asking why we walk the earth or why we live isn't any more profound than asking about the existence of an atom or a subatomic particle—it's all tied to the laws governing our universe. The idea of God or a higher power is really just a reflection of our subjective need to make the world and our lives feel meaningful, comforting, and satisfying.
Is the universe itself meaningful, including us walking the earth? Probably, but "meaning" is just a human concept. Other beings don't lose sleep over finding meaning. Maybe meaning is just an illusion, much like our perception of time passing...

By that logic, you could label everything in the cosmos a "human idea." You wouldn't have to call anything a fact, and even for proven things, you could argue they're just human ideas shaped by our own concept of purpose.

Donna White50 said:Your logic is a bit flawed right out of the gate. You're assuming life and its characteristics are "gifts," but why would they be gifts? And why would a human be any more significant than the stardust we actually came from? We tend to blow the significance of life way out of proportion, but life is really just a cycle of evolution, starting from the creation of the first atom and moving forward from there... We overinflate ourselves because our ego makes us feel important, driving us to fight evolutionarily just to keep the cycle going.
Asking why we walk the earth or why we live isn't any more profound than asking about the existence of an atom or a subatomic particle—it's all tied to the laws governing our universe. The idea of God or a higher power is really just a reflection of our subjective need to make the world and our lives feel meaningful, comforting, and satisfying.
Is the universe itself meaningful, including us walking the earth? Probably, but "meaning" is just a human concept. Other beings don't lose sleep over finding meaning. Maybe meaning is just an illusion, much like our perception of time passing...

Maybe they aren't even at a level of consciousness where they *can* get tired of it?
Anyone can choose to care—if they want to, obviously. I'm not saying everyone’s going to find some grand answer, but honestly, wanting to understand things seems like a more logical way to live than just ignoring it all. At the end of the day, though, everyone's gotta pick their own path.

Ryan Wilson2 said:Well, I identified as an agnostic on the last census 🧐

The gift of life is a miracle? Where on earth are you getting that from? Are you living on the Moon or something, wondering why there's actually life around you? 😁

From where I’m standing, looking at the world around me, life isn't even that miraculous; it's everywhere you look. And frankly, we destroy it quite frequently. People strip away this supposed "miracle" all the time because of their convictions, their religion, or some abstract ideology. We send people off to die in wars just to secure fuel supplies—specifically oil. To simply survive, we have to kill—whether it's animals, plants, or whatever else stands in the way.

There is nothing miraculous about it. It isn't a "gift" at all; in my view, it is simply a fundamental law of the universe, much like gravity. Is gravity considered miraculous just because it consistently follows the exact same formula to function? How does gravity "know" which formula to use? Perhaps that is the true miracle of gravity.

So, there you have it. 😁

Not in the sense of being shocked. I mean that through life, you can actually articulate other things you possess—emotions, purpose, work, etc., etc. You missed the point, but whatever.

Ryan Wilson2 said:Well, I identified as an agnostic on the last census 🧐

The gift of life is a miracle? Where on earth are you getting that from? Are you living on the Moon or something, wondering why there's actually life around you? 😁

From where I’m standing, looking at the world around me, life isn't even that miraculous; it's everywhere you look. And frankly, we destroy it quite frequently. People strip away this supposed "miracle" all the time because of their convictions, their religion, or some abstract ideology. We send people off to die in wars just to secure fuel supplies—specifically oil. To simply survive, we have to kill—whether it's animals, plants, or whatever else stands in the way.

There is nothing miraculous about it. It isn't a "gift" at all; in my view, it is simply a fundamental law of the universe, much like gravity. Is gravity considered miraculous just because it consistently follows the exact same formula to function? How does gravity "know" which formula to use? Perhaps that is the true miracle of gravity.

So, there you have it. 😁

If it wasn't such a miracle and if you didn't value it, you wouldn't have any problem taking it away.
Comparing a fundamental law of nature to life—which exists on a completely different level of abstraction—is an interesting move.

Ryan Wilson2 said:Well, I identified as an agnostic on the last census 🧐

The gift of life is a miracle? Where on earth are you getting that from? Are you living on the Moon or something, wondering why there's actually life around you? 😁

From where I’m standing, looking at the world around me, life isn't even that miraculous; it's everywhere you look. And frankly, we destroy it quite frequently. People strip away this supposed "miracle" all the time because of their convictions, their religion, or some abstract ideology. We send people off to die in wars just to secure fuel supplies—specifically oil. To simply survive, we have to kill—whether it's animals, plants, or whatever else stands in the way.

There is nothing miraculous about it. It isn't a "gift" at all; in my view, it is simply a fundamental law of the universe, much like gravity. Is gravity considered miraculous just because it consistently follows the exact same formula to function? How does gravity "know" which formula to use? Perhaps that is the true miracle of gravity.

So, there you have it. 😁

I'm totally with you on Gravity—except for the part where Gravity actually "knows" anything.

Not sure what prompted that massive grin on your face, but hey—thanks for the reply.

darkraven said:No way, man. Ietsism isn't just "Secularism," and honestly, I'm pretty baffled that you could read this and totally gloss over the parts that align perfectly with your own definition, "believing in something without being sure what it is";

"Ietsism (Dutch: ietsisme (pronounced [itsˈɪsmə]) – "somethingism") is an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcendent reality."

"Ietsism may roughly be described as a belief in an end-in-itself or similar concept, without further assumption as to exactly what object or objects have such a property, like intrinsic aliquidism without further specification. Other aliquidistic lifestances include the acceptance of "there is something – that is, some meaning of life, something that is an end-in-itself or something more to existence – and it is...", assuming various objects or truths, while ietsism, on the other hand simply accepts "there is something", without further specification, detailing or assumption.

That is literally exactly what you're describing. I have zero clue how you missed that.

Plus, theists can definitely be agnostic (like, "I believe in God, but I don't know for sure if He exists / I think it's impossible to know if He exists"), so the two aren't mutually exclusive at all.

Agnostic ietsists basically believe there is something out there (some kind of "higher power" or "energy"), but they don't actually know if that thing truly exists or if it's even possible to prove it—they just believe.

Nowhere does it say "isn't strictly." How did you guys manage to miss the fact that actual agnostics were telling me this was their exact stance? Interesting.
And the definitions don't match—what you're citing is different from my point. If you actually bothered to translate these Wikipedia snippets you clearly skipped on purpose:

that "there must be something undefined beyond the mundane and that which can be known or can be proven",
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism )

Here’s the translation for you:

that "there must exist something undefined beyond the secular and what can be known or can be proven"

I never claimed that, I don't think that, and I'm certainly not arguing that. You're just desperate to frame it that way, but you're missing the mark. Go back and read what I actually said, and what people who identify as agnostic have told me directly.

Edit, since you're so obsessed with Ietsism:
"ietsism could be defined as agnosticism not with respect to the existence of a supernatural entity but rather to its nature. However, it's better not to put too much effort in defining ietsism since lack of interest in any definition is kind of exactly what ietsism is all about."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ietsism

That's all. Peace.

nimblehound13 said:The OP tried pretty hard to dodge any actual theorizing about God or the Bible.

@op
Look, speaking as an agnostic, my short answer is that what you're talking about doesn't actually mean anything. You're just building this massive strawman out of stories about "divine gifts" and other nonsense, then expecting me to wrap it up in some logical framework.
Personally, I have no idea if God—or whatever else—exists. I tossed the Christian version of God aside as nothing more than a tool for oppression when I was 17, after spending ten years sitting through religious education.
On a purely intellectual level, I figure if there is some higher power out there, we aren't capable of perceiving or even understanding it. Maybe we'll evolve enough to get it one day, maybe it'll reveal itself, or maybe there's just nothing at all.
Nick doesn't know, and frankly, the believers probably know the least of all. Their view of the world is so boxed in by dogma that they can't even manage critical thinking.

I’m just gonna say this again—since I've already laid it out for someone else once. Is anything actually a gift? And does anything even need to be returned to the heavens? —not that I even know what would be worth sending back up there in the first place. Honestly, I don't even see this as an issue—let alone a question worth debating.It doesn't even have to be about gifting. Forget whether it’s a gift or not. The reality is that most people already own all those things— Call them elements if you want—just don't go labeling them "gifts" if that's just how you prefer to wrap your head around it, alright? Life, feelings, all that stuff—that’s where my question comes in. If someone actually possesses it—fact—but keeps turning down the chance to own it, they’re probably just facing something they don't understand or can't wrap their heads around. And if we're talking about a "higher power"—since you brought up that specific phrase—why on earth would that force have to be some mindless, dead energy? Some people act like it’s just raw, unthinking force. Doesn't track. If life and everything else comes from that same source, the math just doesn't add up. It's illogical.

nimblehound13 said:The OP tried pretty hard to dodge any actual theorizing about God or the Bible.

@op
Look, speaking as an agnostic, my short answer is that what you're talking about doesn't actually mean anything. You're just building this massive strawman out of stories about "divine gifts" and other nonsense, then expecting me to wrap it up in some logical framework.
Personally, I have no idea if God—or whatever else—exists. I tossed the Christian version of God aside as nothing more than a tool for oppression when I was 17, after spending ten years sitting through religious education.
On a purely intellectual level, I figure if there is some higher power out there, we aren't capable of perceiving or even understanding it. Maybe we'll evolve enough to get it one day, maybe it'll reveal itself, or maybe there's just nothing at all.
Nick doesn't know, and frankly, the believers probably know the least of all. Their view of the world is so boxed in by dogma that they can't even manage critical thinking.

Fair enough—that’s the answer right there.

The big shot said:says:
my cat could pull all that off too—and she’s never even stepped foot in a church.

Sure, but cats and animals run on pure instinct—unlike humans, who operate on a much higher level of consciousness. A cat couldn't even go to church if it wanted to, since it doesn't grasp the concept. And again, I really don't want this thread turning into a debate about religion, churches, or the Bible. There are plenty of other threads for that stuff, and I'm sure you can find similar ones over there. People should be able to come up with logical answers without needing to lean on some religious text to do it.

mistydrifter55 said:Since you’re looking at this through the lens of a believer while asking a question like this, it makes sense that you're struggling to wrap your head around someone seeing things differently than you do. You assume there's some divine exchange happening, but what if there isn't?
God is God. That's just how it works. He's fundamentally different from an earthly physical being.
There aren't "gifts" involved—not physical ones, not emotional ones, nothing.
And there’s zero need for any kind of cosmic payback.
People just think differently. Period.

Look, I have no problem grasping that people think differently or view life's blessings through a different prism. That's not the issue. My point wasn't even about whether these things count as gifts or blessings—that's beside the point. I wasn't aiming for that. It was just an observation that they exist. The actual question was about how someone who *does* believe in a higher power explains that reality.

mistydrifter55 said:Since you’re looking at this through the lens of a believer while asking a question like this, it makes sense that you're struggling to wrap your head around someone seeing things differently than you do. You assume there's some divine exchange happening, but what if there isn't?
God is God. That's just how it works. He's fundamentally different from an earthly physical being.
There aren't "gifts" involved—not physical ones, not emotional ones, nothing.
And there’s zero need for any kind of cosmic payback.
People just think differently. Period.

Fine. But let me repeat myself. Whether something is a "gift" or if we need to "return" anything to the heavens (not that I even know what that would look like)—that's not what I'm debating. Let's drop the whole "gift" terminology entirely. The bottom line is that humans possess these elements—life, emotions, whatever you want to call them. That's just a fact. My question hits at this: if a person possesses these things, why reject the possibility that they might stem from something unknown or something that transcends us? If we're calling this thing a "higher power"—your words, by the way—then why assume that power has to be some mindless, dead, mere energy source? At least according to some people. If life and everything else come from the same source, the math doesn't add up for me.

Just to be clear—I don't have an issue with the agnostic stance. Everyone can believe whatever they want or feel certain about.

darkraven said:Look, not only is that completely wrong about what agnosticism actually means, but what you're describing is basically just a specific flavor of theism: ietism. It's a type of belief that isn't exactly mainstream, even though there are plenty of people out there who fit that description perfectly.

I’ve been looking into this whole "ietsism" thing—this idea that people just believe in *something*—and honestly, it’s not really what I’m getting at. It feels like pure Secularism, which doesn't necessarily define agnosticism. Agnosticism shouldn't even have to deal with religious stances in the first place—especially if the core vibe is just "I don't know." Personally, I’ve heard folks who call themselves agnostic describe it as "believing in something, but just not being sure exactly what it is." I haven't actually had the chance to sit down and grill anyone to see if they actually agree with that.

bluemason3 said:a - they don't offer explanations, which is why they lean toward agnosticism rather than being atheists or believers

b - the sheer complexity of existence isn't exactly a slam dunk proof of God.

If they ask, I can walk them through it.

bluemason3 said:a - they don't offer explanations, which is why they lean toward agnosticism rather than being atheists or believers

b - the sheer complexity of existence isn't exactly a slam dunk proof of God.

Whether something is good or bad isn't even the point here—nor was it ever about proving God's existence.

Tyler Ruiz502 said:You’ve basically constructed this entire elaborate narrative based on a bunch of assumptions, and now you're looking at it and wondering why the whole thing feels totally illogical? 😬

Look, an agnostic doesn't spend their time obsessing over higher powers. They just live their lives—using the faculties they were born with and sharpening them along the way—completely unburdened by spirituality. Honestly, most agnostics only even remember they identify that way if someone actually asks.

I don't quite get why you're calling those features "gifts." It feels like you just got tangled up in this weird web of your own making—assuming that agnostics believe in some higher power that bestowed these "gifts" upon them, and then acting surprised when you realize it seems illogical that this supposed higher power wouldn't use its own gift.

Like I said before, we don't really bother ourselves with all that esoteric stuff; we just focus on living a good life and making the most of the possibilities right in front of us.

Not me—I’m talking about people who strictly believe in a higher power. Nothing is actually complicated; it only feels that way to someone who chooses to look at it through that lens.

Tyler Ruiz502 said:You’ve basically constructed this entire elaborate narrative based on a bunch of assumptions, and now you're looking at it and wondering why the whole thing feels totally illogical? 😬

Look, an agnostic doesn't spend their time obsessing over higher powers. They just live their lives—using the faculties they were born with and sharpening them along the way—completely unburdened by spirituality. Honestly, most agnostics only even remember they identify that way if someone actually asks.

I don't quite get why you're calling those features "gifts." It feels like you just got tangled up in this weird web of your own making—assuming that agnostics believe in some higher power that bestowed these "gifts" upon them, and then acting surprised when you realize it seems illogical that this supposed higher power wouldn't use its own gift.

Like I said before, we don't really bother ourselves with all that esoteric stuff; we just focus on living a good life and making the most of the possibilities right in front of us.

Just because most people seem to get the gist doesn't mean everyone actually thinks the same way—so calling it a universal truth is just lazy generalizing.

Tyler Ruiz502 said:You’ve basically constructed this entire elaborate narrative based on a bunch of assumptions, and now you're looking at it and wondering why the whole thing feels totally illogical? 😬

Look, an agnostic doesn't spend their time obsessing over higher powers. They just live their lives—using the faculties they were born with and sharpening them along the way—completely unburdened by spirituality. Honestly, most agnostics only even remember they identify that way if someone actually asks.

I don't quite get why you're calling those features "gifts." It feels like you just got tangled up in this weird web of your own making—assuming that agnostics believe in some higher power that bestowed these "gifts" upon them, and then acting surprised when you realize it seems illogical that this supposed higher power wouldn't use its own gift.

Like I said before, we don't really bother ourselves with all that esoteric stuff; we just focus on living a good life and making the most of the possibilities right in front of us.

And why not? There’s actually a rule somewhere on the forum: "don't call a feature a gift." Plus, why bother mixing English and American—it just gets messy. You can say everything you need to say in one language.

Tyler Ruiz502 said:You’ve basically constructed this entire elaborate narrative based on a bunch of assumptions, and now you're looking at it and wondering why the whole thing feels totally illogical? 😬

Look, an agnostic doesn't spend their time obsessing over higher powers. They just live their lives—using the faculties they were born with and sharpening them along the way—completely unburdened by spirituality. Honestly, most agnostics only even remember they identify that way if someone actually asks.

I don't quite get why you're calling those features "gifts." It feels like you just got tangled up in this weird web of your own making—assuming that agnostics believe in some higher power that bestowed these "gifts" upon them, and then acting surprised when you realize it seems illogical that this supposed higher power wouldn't use its own gift.

Like I said before, we don't really bother ourselves with all that esoteric stuff; we just focus on living a good life and making the most of the possibilities right in front of us.

I don't get why you guys are getting so worked up about this. You completely missed the point—honestly, I’m not even surprised at this point—I’m just asking a question.

Quincy:

Katjes—basically the gummy candy equivalent of a reliable old Ford. Simple, straightforward, and doesn't need all that extra junk to get the job done. kaže: Like I said—we aren't wasting our energy on that esoteric stuff. We’re just out here living life to the fullest and grabbing every opportunity that comes our way.

Look, dodging the question is an answer in itself. Honestly, it’s clear I’m barking up the wrong tree here—you’re just not the one with the answers I'm looking for. Peace.

feralranger said:Newborns? I fail to see how jealousy could possibly have anything to do with them.

Small children certainly haven't developed a fully formed ego yet; rather, the ego begins to manifest at a certain stage of development... so, it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest a toddler possesses a cohesive personality... that sense of 'self,' the ego, or any actual persona, is something that takes years of growth to actually establish.

It develops, exactly. There’s already a slice of personality there, even then—just at whatever level they can reach. But it's not like there's "nothing" there.

I’m intentionally dropping this thread here instead of the religion sub—mostly to steer clear of theological debates and keep things strictly focused on the metaphysical side through a logical lens. Let's skip the whole Bible discussion and religious text commentary.

I'm curious how folks who lean toward agnosticism explain this one.
Look, a human exists. There are endless possibilities. You can experience life—walking, doing, loving, feeling—basically testing out all sorts of experiences during your time here. Let's just call them "gifts" (doesn't matter if you believe in God or not; call them gifts from whoever you want right now).

An agnostic believes in *something*, they just aren't sure what. A lot of them claim to believe in a higher power, but they don't necessarily believe God is a living being. They see it as some kind of energy. And since energy isn't a sentient being, it can't make decisions, intervene, or anything like that. So, that pretty much rules out the idea of a personal God—a God who actually steps in and meddles in human affairs. The religious take (at least in mainstream American traditions like Christianity) views God as both a higher force *and* a personal being.

So, my question for the agnostics is this: if a person has the capacity to experience all these things, and an agnostic attributes those blessings to a higher power, does it make sense to suggest that this higher power/God is incapable of experiencing those same gifts (in whatever form, doesn't even matter which) that they bestowed upon a lower being (a human)?

In other words, is it logically sound to think that something as incredible as the gift of life is something only "lower" beings—animals, humans, plants—can experience? Is it possible that for a higher power/God, experiencing these things, even in a spiritual or otherworldly way, is impossible? It's like the Being Above gives a gift to the being below, yet that very gift remains unreachable to the Source itself. As someone who believes in God as a living being rather than just raw energy, that doesn't sit right with me—but I'm genuinely interested in the logic used by those who don't believe in a living God.

Just looking for the logic here. No need to pull out a holy book for the answer, which is why I'm posting this here. Cheers.