Because they're so cool.

I'm so sorry.

Cool? I thought they're gay.

I'm equally sorry.

Honestly, I prefer puffins.

you prefer puffin puffins? huh? you sick fuck?

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

The Riddle of Epicurus, which is rated 1 star on thinkexist.com. Bitter christians.

i read that as think sexist

You oppressive shitlord.

Homosexuality in penguins is one of the more famous instances of homosexuality in the animal kingdom besides humans, largely because of the frequency with which it turns up in zoos around the world.

Bonobos are another iirc.

What I want to know is why an omnipotent being has to rest after creating a universe. He's omnipotent, he has unlimited power. And why does it take him days to create an entire universe. He can just avoid the all of the trouble, and put all of his creations into existence.

To be fair, I don't know of any claim that god had to rest, only that he did.

If bonobos have sexual preferences, they are difficult to deduce. They just have sex with everybody as a standard social interaction.

What BM said.

Two completely different responses:

1. God created evil and he did it for a reason. That's the wonderful thing about ineffability - we'll never understand why.

2. What is evil? If you mean the devil tempting people against god's wishes, that's clearly a sign of not-omnipotentness. But I come from a Jewish background where such a concept is unthinkable. If you say that natural disasters and parasitic fungi are evil, then I disagree with you. They're not morally anything. They're just unpleasant. And there's the fundamental problem with people who say that 'God is Love' - god clearly isn't love. God isn't nice. God isn't really even good by human standards. What god is, is right. By definition, anything he does is the right thing to do, even if we humans may not like it.

What I like is that he spent days on this tiny insignificant planet, and made the entire fucking rest of the universe in one day. Do you have any fucking idea how vast and complex the universe is.
It's also pretty funny that he just decided to create a universe one day. He was just floating around like "I'm getting kind of bored after being here for infinite years, I think I'll make some shit".

Sounds like Manchester, to me.
"God works in mysterious ways!" is simply, a cop out. Much in the way that the top rated answer to this riddle on experienceproject.com is: "God is none of these things. God is something more". According to the believers on experienceproject.com these poultry two sentences, devoid of any substance whatsoever are the best answer available to the riddle of Epicurus. This is a common criticism of the riddle (proven by you). You're basically saying "yes, it may seem to not make sense to our frail human logic, but God is beyond our ability to grasp. God is said to live outside our range of reasoning, we cannot comprehend him, he is beyond us".
The most obvious problem with this answer is that it's a cop out. It exempts the concept of God from criticism and essentially renders him unfalsifiable. Imagine if I made the claim to you that I can turn into a firebreathing dragon and fly around whenever I like, the only drawback being that I can't do it when anyone is looking. Then when you make the claim that this cannot possibly be true I would simply say "well, not by physics and biology as you understand it, but us dragon-men are an exeption to the laws of physics and basic biology, we are beyond reality as far as you can grasp it". I'd be laughed out of the building, I'd be ridiculed and mocked relentlessly, and I would absolutely deserve it. No idea should be allowed to squeeze out of being able to be explained by simply claiming to be above the rules and beyond our understanding.
Not natural disasters, though if there was a god, they would be under his control and therefore you could call it evil, because it is willed. Nature however, isn't evil.
What is evil? Most Christians say that evil is simply the absence of good. Darkness in the absence of light. God didn't create evil, but he created beings called humans who could choose not to be good, and THAT is why there is evil in the world
This doesn't really add up. If God made man capable of turning away from good, he was still creating evil, or if you believe in the literal creation story, he created man with enough of a rebellious side to eat from the Tree of Knowledge and fall from grace. Either way, our biology is at fault for evil, and God is at fault for our biology.
And how could evil be the mere absence of good? Is genocide the absence of something? Of what, of kindness? Were there no kind Nazis? Of love? Were there no Maoist revolutionaries that loved their families?
Evil is an act. We commit evil proactively, it doesn't just emerge in the absence of good. When you don't put a quid in the breast cancer charity tin at the checkout at ASDA, it doesn't mean that an axe murderer was created.

Human beings have one set of actions described as good, and another set described as evil. It may not always be as black an white as that but that's the gist of it.
A common response I'd get to that is that we have free will and the ability to make any such choices because, life is a test. It is a test to determine whether or not we are fit for salvation.
This may have been a somewhat compelling answer before the advent of modern neuroscience, which demonstrates that our consciousness is made up by the physical components of the brain. The 'soul' that would allow us to survive physical death and allow our consciousness to survive has never been demonstrated to exist.

Furthermore, a test on Earth is designed to gauge the abilities of those taking it. Why would an all-powerful all-knowing entity need to test us, shouldn't he know what our morality is and exactly who we are right off the bat?
Let's put that aside and say that for some reason God can't know our morality without conducting this test. Now think about this, life being a test is the equivelant of giving a bunch of primary school kids tests, except some have 15 minutes in which to complete it, and some have 2 weeks. Some have easy questions like 2+2 and some have difficult ones like 'explain in detail why barium forms an ion with the charge of 2+'. Would anybody take the results of such a test seriously? Of course not, because in order for a test to be a measure of anything it needs to be fair, that means it needs to be the same for everyone who takes it. The theory that life is a test doesn't hold up to scrutiny because, life isn't fair.
Further, if God is testing us then the way you pass the test is absurd. You pass the test of life when you give up all reason and logic and accept the divinity of the Christian God. The only personality trait demonstrated here is willful ignorance- this is what God rewards?

Another explanation for the existence of evil in a world supposedly created by an omnipotent loving God is that there exists another entity. An entity that exists in the universe solely dedicated to sowing seeds of evil. This force is most commonly referred to as ZEE DEVIL. Satan is the lord of Hell and he works against God for the souls of all mankind. God wants tou to go to heaven and does all he can to see to it that you make the right choices and get saved.

ZE DEVIL, on the other hand wants to trick you into being naughty and going to hell to burn for all time in an agonizing pit of flames. He puts temptations and sin in your path.

The problems with this are multitudinous.
First off, if God is all-powerful then he should be able to just destroy the Devil instantly if he so desired. Failing that, why doesn't God just manifest on Earth to prove that he exists and tell us outright how to avoid damnation. God allowing the Devil to exist makes no sense. A God who created the Devil in the first place is still the author of evil.

As for what God is, it seems not one person can agree on it. Another thing to ask is why is God's supposedly infinite knowledge limited by the knowledge of humans from the time period said God's respective holy book was written, for example, the earth being flat?
If God is the ultimate be-all end-all when it comes to morality, does that mean misogyny, homophobia, slavery and paedophilia are all completely just?

I'd like to reiterate that the riddle of Epicurus is rated 1 out of 5 stars on thinkexist.com. A quote that single-handedly refutes the entire moral law argument for the existence of God is rated one star. A quote regarding questions of theology and morality from one of the most important intellectuals in human history is rated one star yet, Epicurus was a brilliant thinker.

Forgive the lack of paragraphs and structure in this post, I'm writing on a phone and it's a pain in the balls.

Just so we're all clear, Nate's presenting the arguments he knows in lieu of any earnest punching bag. He knows its crap.

I don't see the point when there is no one genuinely arguing the other side, no matter how well we reiterate real arguments we'll be battling straw dudes and satanic advocates.

I was just trying to negate every possible argument. I think I did a thorough job.

You woefully underestimate the apologist. The are massively twisty, regularly dishonest, and like us have heard it all before. That means they have weirder, more annoying arguments. I once found myself deep with an argument with the single most disingenuous person I have ever had the misfortune to meet. I have since learned that the name for what he was doing was presuppositional apologetics. If you look it up, your brain with explode in a furious attempt to punish you for exposing it to that crap, and it will be right to do so.

The meat of it can be rendered down into: "you already know there's a god and you are lying when you claim to be atheist." There's other stuff too, but it's all in the service of that basic premise.

Oh no I totally understand, and I've heard much worse than that. These people start with the conclusion and do everything they can to protect it like it's their baby, just like feminists.
They completely disregard logic and reason, deny facts outright and most of the time they won't even try to understand your points, they'll just try to think of ways to refute them.
I've heard stuff like "atheism is a hoax and you are possessed by the devil". It's like they cannot comprehend that someone does not hold their exact beliefs, which is funny because no theist holds the exact same beliefs as another.

EDIT: I should probably explain why I bother to debate this sort of thing. What BM says is right. But also, I grew up in a religious environment and still have regular contact with people living on the wrong side of fundamentalism. On the other side, I see atheists regularly making wild pronouncements about religion without fully understanding how it's practiced or what people believe. An argument that an atheist finds satisfying wouldn't even draw a scratch on a believer's faith. So I'm responding to Nepsotic to point out that the arguments that he thinks are iron clad really don't work when facing against faith and apologetics.



I don't think it's a cop out. It's not a satisfying answer, sure. But it's pretty much the only one that is possible. If you work from the starting point of god being a supreme being, it must follow that s/he can understand things we don't. There's no other way around it.

And, yes, it renders god unfalsifiable. That's true of just about any apologetic explanation. Or, outside of the world of religion, conspiracy theories work the same way. You're approaching a non-scientific topic with a scientific mindset. The point of discussing god isn't about falsifiability because that's simply impossible. It's about... well, it's about a lot of things. But disproving god is not one of them.


Lots of people point to natural disasters as proof that god doesn't exist or that if he does exist, he's evil himself. I was trying to explain that that's a juvenile view of god. They equate being good with being nice and thus with living a fluffy, comfortable life with no pain or death. If you actually read the bible, god is not nice at all. Look at the Noah story; god clearly is prepared to kill millions of people if he chooses to. And this goes back to what I was saying before: God is above human views of good and evil happenings. By definition, everything he does is right.




Yes.

Not sure what your point is here. Sure, god created everything. Including evil. He created a world and chose not to make it perfect and mixed in a whole pile of shitty stuff to keep things interesting. Why? I don't know. But if you believe in god, then you can't deny that's the case. And if you believe in god, you've got to believe that he had a reason for it. I'm yet to hear a reason that I think is satisfying, but plenty of religious people are reassured just knowing that god had a reason even if they don't know it.

Not really. You don't pass the test when you acheive the same thing as the other guy. Someone who started life in a shitty situation passes the test when they become an incrementally better person. Someone who was born into privelege would have to put in a similar amount of effort, not a similar level of incremental improvement. The second person would have to reach much further to achieve the same goal.



That's why I prefer the Jewish god, who rewards action rather than faith.

As I said in my previous post, the idea that god is incapable of stomping on the devil is laughable. So either the devil doesn't exist or god wants him to exist. In Judaism there's no concept of the devil. There's a man's evil inclination, which is generally regarded as being simply a failing of human nature but sometimes is anthropomorphised as an actual angel whose job it is to tempt you. Similarly, Satan isn't a devil but an angel whose job it is to keep track of everybody's sins and be the prosecutor when you die and are judged. 'Satan' literally means 'accuser'. The thing is though, he doesn't actually want you to be judged negatively. He's hoping you were a good person in your life and get rewarded. He's just an angel with a shitty job to do.




Well, I can't recall the bible ever saying that the world was flat. It did refer to the corners of the Earth, but that can be regarded as metaphor. But aside from that specific example, it's a fair point.


Prrrrretty much, yes. In certain contexts. But only because you used the word 'just' rather than 'good'.

Except it doesn't refute the entire moral law argument. Any capable apologist would be able to explain it away in a minute and a half. In most cases by simply defining evil the way they like, which is what I did in my post.

Also, why are you so confused that it's rated only 1 star? Are you surprised that people rate things that challenge their long-held beliefs lowly?

You tapped all that out on a phone? Holy shit!

Toot toot, look who is on time for his contrarian shitposting.

I disagree with the term "marriage equality" which is a question begging attempt by homosexuals to phrase their position as being the objectively correct one. The current definition of marriage as a man and a woman is arbitrary, but not in itself unequal. "Marriage equality" could just as well describe polygamous marriages.

That said I'm fully supportive of same-sex marriage and don't really feel strongly about the aforemade point, but wanted to get this ball rolling.

now fite me

There's a decent video about this issue in Northern Ireland at the moment - which has a very strong vein of religious fundamentalism here.



EDIT: and a bit of Clark and Dawe.

What's wrong with polyamorous marriages? As long as everyone's honest and open with each other and there aren't wierd power dynamics in terms of religion or money, who's harmed?

Yeah, if people want to be in a consensual polygamous marriage, nobody should have the right to tell them they can't.

Nothing. If we can expand the law to make some folk's lives happier and legally easier without any harmful side effects than I can see nothing wrong with it. But people are not referring to polyamorous marriage when they use the term marriage equality.

It gets a bad rap because those who tend to participate are often from reclusive cults riddled with abuse and both forced and underage participation, though that's hardly an argument against it because that's the kind of thing law enforcement should be dealing with in any case.

The problems with poly marriage are entirely legal ones. Recall that the only thing that changed with marriage equality was who is allowed to participate with one another, every other aspect remains identical. There's the rub: there is no legal precedent for fair marriages containing more than one participant, and the current marriage laws have absolutely no ability to deal with that whatsoever. Everything from inheritance to child support, power of attorney, divorce and custody, all of it in current laws expects only two participants. Changing that doesn't demand rewrites or additions, it requires rebuilding the whole thing from the ground-up. Example: with multiple equal spouses, what do you do when one is rendered unable to make their own medical decisions and the other spouses disagree on the course of action? What do you do when someone leaves the marriage and there are children? That they are related to? That they are not related to? If that changes things then the marriage does not have equality of responsibility and is more like multiple two-person marriages all mixed up, with all the problems that would cause.

It's an unprecedented legal nightmare. The real problem is not finding public support, it's finding the legislative will to sort it out. The only solution I can see would be to create a modular marriage licence that is customised to the number of participants and other necessary aspects, allowing it to be constructed to requirement, including the popular two-person package that affords the familiar rights and responsibilities of a two-person marriage. This means dismantling the legal institution of marriage entirely and building something new. Possibility adapting from current laws of business incorporating, which deals with similar issues.

I would support that, I'm just saying that the difficulties and practicalities of putting together a workable system may be prohibitive, at the very least a very long way off. The best case scenario would, ironically, involve in part the overturning of gay marriage laws so soon after their implementation.

BM: Agreed with everything in your post but this:
Yes, it means dismantling the legal institution of marriage. No, it doesn't mean building something new in law. If you look at the laws surrounding marriage, they're heading in that way already. At least in Australia (and I think it's similar elsewhere) the legal benefits of getting married have been watered down, while the legal benefits of being in a de facto/common law relationship has been strengthened. I believe that in time the legal concept of marriage will disappear entirely. People will still have ceremonies, whether religious or secular, but it won't be recognised by the state. And all the legal ramifications you mention will be determined (largely by the courts, I imagine) as matters between two or more people, with no particular weight given to an archaic tradition. And it'll be a lot easier that way - imagine how much easier the fight to support recognition of gay relationships would have been if it didn't involve the word 'marriage'. Similar to recognition of polyamorous relationships.

I guess the common law relationships would qualify as "something new," since not everywhere has those available yet.

I think you would still need more than independently constructed contracts for each one, though. Not everyone will understand the options, lawyering up isn't very romantic and we can't risk the quality of the contract being linked to the price of the lawyer- that defeats the whole point of equality.

It is also needed for other institutions: hospitals, for example, will need an easy and reliable way to know who gets visitation rights and power of attorney without trouble, schools will need to know that the stranger who arrived to take away a kid is really one of their parents, and so forth. I don't think any modern society has properly explored the complexities yet, and so geared toward two-person relationships as society is we're bound to have blind spots setting us up for unexpected outcomes.