Epicurus -- Consolation for not having enough money has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.

Don't lump Agnostics in with the Atheist I find it a bit insulting. I'm Agnostic, I believe their is a god just that no human can possibly comprehend his existence and therefore no religion could possibly be even close to right because every single holy book was written by man and therefore fatally flawed. I don't think god is either malevolent or benevolent I think he just is. If I had to hazard a guess as to the identity of god I think the universe as a whole itself IS god. That explains just about everything from evolution to the existence of good and evil. Light, dark, intelligence, and the possibility of life outside of our own planet.

That said Pat Robinson is the biggest scam artist of all time, and the fact that he's even involved in this scheme makes me pause. Rule of thumb anyone trying to make money off their religion is probably not a trustworthy person.

>> ^VoodooV:

Funny that's what the agnostics and atheists argue when it comes to belief in a god. Just because you can't think of a better reason, doesn't mean god did it.
The so called morality of the Christian god has been demonstrated time and time again to be in conflict to what we know of as a free and just democratic society where all people are equal...not just the "chosen" ones who believe.
The instant we decided that slavery was wrong, we became better than the Christian god
The instant we decided that stonings were not an appropriate method of punishment, we became better than the Christian god.

>> ^Morganth:
Just because you can't think of a good reason why God would allow evil and suffering to continue, therefore there can't be one? Why would that be? That's some very poor logic. >> ^A10anis:
Epicurus had it correct in 300BCE;
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?
Don't let these brainwashed self deluders, with their childish concepts, take us back to an age when every aspect of life was controlled by their cult. They are free to be slaves to their gods in private, but free, logical, 21st century, intelligent thinkers, should fight tooth and nail to keep it out of Politics and, especially, away from our kids and schools.

>> ^Morganth:

Just because you can't think of a good reason why God would allow evil and suffering to continue, therefore there can't be one? Why would that be? That's some very poor logic. >> ^A10anis:
Epicurus had it correct in 300BCE;
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?
Don't let these brainwashed self deluders, with their childish concepts, take us back to an age when every aspect of life was controlled by their cult. They are free to be slaves to their gods in private, but free, logical, 21st century, intelligent thinkers, should fight tooth and nail to keep it out of Politics and, especially, away from our kids and schools.


Wow, that just went way over your head, didn't it. "God-is-mysterious-but-he-is-god-so-he-must-have-a-good-reason" is your idea of good logic? Anyway, Epicurus isn't saying god doesn't have a reason. Only that it must be malevolent IF he is "able, but not willing".

Funny that's what the agnostics and atheists argue when it comes to belief in a god. Just because you can't think of a better reason, doesn't mean god did it.

The so called morality of the Christian god has been demonstrated time and time again to be in conflict to what we know of as a free and just democratic society where all people are equal...not just the "chosen" ones who believe.

The instant we decided that slavery was wrong, we became better than the Christian god
The instant we decided that stonings were not an appropriate method of punishment, we became better than the Christian god.


>> ^Morganth:

Just because you can't think of a good reason why God would allow evil and suffering to continue, therefore there can't be one? Why would that be? That's some very poor logic. >> ^A10anis:
Epicurus had it correct in 300BCE;
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?
Don't let these brainwashed self deluders, with their childish concepts, take us back to an age when every aspect of life was controlled by their cult. They are free to be slaves to their gods in private, but free, logical, 21st century, intelligent thinkers, should fight tooth and nail to keep it out of Politics and, especially, away from our kids and schools.

Just because you can't think of a good reason why God would allow evil and suffering to continue, therefore there can't be one? Why would that be? That's some very poor logic. >> ^A10anis:

Epicurus had it correct in 300BCE;
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?
Don't let these brainwashed self deluders, with their childish concepts, take us back to an age when every aspect of life was controlled by their cult. They are free to be slaves to their gods in private, but free, logical, 21st century, intelligent thinkers, should fight tooth and nail to keep it out of Politics and, especially, away from our kids and schools.

Epicurus had it correct in 300BCE;

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?

Don't let these brainwashed self deluders, with their childish concepts, take us back to an age when every aspect of life was controlled by their cult. They are free to be slaves to their gods in private, but free, logical, 21st century, intelligent thinkers, should fight tooth and nail to keep it out of Politics and, especially, away from our kids and schools.

Before adding to the debate, I'd like to point out that @kevingrr has made, imo, the most pertinent commentary so far. Notably, that Hedges is intellectually dishonest (and that's a euphemism), and is simply piggy-backing on the success of thinkers such as Harris and Hitchens to sell a couple books, even if that means smearing them and the whole atheist/antitheist movement, grasping at strawmen and making indefensible claims... you know, what religious apologists usually do. (It's actually tempting to invoke * lies, considering how badly he misrepresents Harris, but I'll leave that to the OP to decide).

@dystopianfuturetoday

Of course you're not threatened by Hedges, as he has absolutely nothing to contribute. The so-called "New Atheists" (if you can call Epicurus and Paine "New") are fighting for change, progress, while the religious apologists and fundies are fighting either for the status quo or for regression*. Hedges is just propping himself above everyone else in an attempt to sell books and condescend.

_{(*by progress/regression, I'm speaking of moral, social and intellectual.)}

One thing needs to made clear about religion (the following is also addressed to you @SDGundamX): it is not the fundamentalists that are the problem, it is the fundamentals. And yes, I am not ashamed to admit that that is a quote borrowed from Sam Harris. As kevingrr points out, humanity has made immense moral progress over time, and what has been one of its biggest obstacle has been the fundamentals of religious ideologies, especially the desert monotheisms.

What makes religion religion? Supernatural truth claims. Take that away, and you have philosophy, history, poetry, law, etc... all things that are dependant on human thought and experience, and can be reshaped with experience, evidence, etc. But supernatural truth claims cannot be challenged, cannot be empirically experienced or disproved by anyone, and that is why they are such a powerful tool of manipulation, and why it is child abuse to indoctrinate kids with such beliefs at an age when they take everything their parents/authority figures say as truth (survival demands it). Monotheism is all the more dangerous because it provides an unchallengeable dictatorial authority to whomever wields it (versus polytheism's plurality), be they imams, rabbis, priests or simply bigoted parents.

Saying that we should focus on the bad results of fundamentalism and leave religion itself (and all other forms of superstitious belief) alone is like saying one should focus on the symptoms but ignore the disease. Sure, the symptoms need to be treated, but if we do not also attack the sickness that is causing them we are wasting our time.

I am not saying we shouldn't side with religious moderates to fight the symptoms. But it's not as believers that they should be sided with, but simply as fellow human beings fighting for human well-being and moral progress. If some want to delude themselves into thinking that their actions are driven by the will of an invisible sky-daddy instead of their own humanity and empathy, so be it (although it's pretty sad).

Yep, Lucretius was a great mind indeed! One must also give credit to Epicurus, though, the philosophy of whom inspired that of the roman poet.

>> ^bamdrew:

Great article about "On the Nature of Things", by Lucretius,... the article makes the point that the rediscovery of this ancient Roman poem about godless physics is thought to have pulled European society out of the dark ages.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_greenblatt
http://www.newyorker.com/online/2011/08/08/110808on_audio_greenblatt (good audio podcast by article's author)

You said god allows evil to exist so people will "know" him. If he can stop evil, but does not do so, he is not a good being.

And your morality response is an absolute cop out. As far as we know, Hitler never murdered anyone. But because he ordered the deaths of millions we consider him evil. Your god ordered the deaths of an entire people (1 Sam. 15:2-3), the theft of property (Numbers 31:7-18), the abduction and rape of virgins (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) and the slavery of anyone not born an Israelite (Leviticus 25:44-46) and yet you consider him good? God specifically mentions the people of Samaria and that "their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open" (Hosea 13:16). How fucked up do you have to be to think this is a benevolent god?
>> ^shinyblurry:

What I admitted to is that God allows you to have matches, and warns you that you could burn your house down, but if you ignore the warning He will still save your life..and you probably won't play with matches again in the future. If you listened to God you never would have burned your house down in the first place. God created a world in which evil did not exist; that He allowed us to screw up and bring it into the world means we have the freedom to choose. To take that away means we have no choice. What you are advocating is that God doesn't allow you to have matches, or if He does, to continually prevent you from abusing them. That isn't freedom.
As far as God breaking His own commandments, He would really only be subject to two of them, since the rest couldn't apply to Him. Lying, and murder. He never done either. He has never lied. He has killed, but it was never murder. Murder is to kill unlawfully. Under the law the penalty for sin is death. So if you want to point to places in the bible God took life, that was entirely lawful. Over 2 million people are born and die every day..giving and taking life is something God does all the time. That He is patient with us even though we are sinners shows His mercy. That He sent His Son to take our place so we could be forgiven and obtain eternal life shows His love.
>> ^Skeeve:
If I allow someone to burn your house down, only so that I can run in and save you when it is on fire so that you like me, am I a good person? You just admitted that your god does the same thing - allows evil to exist so humans will like him - so how can he be good? Why would anyone worship such a horrible creature?
As for the argument from morality that you have provided, if you provide me with something that is objectively evil, I will provide you with the bible verse in which your evil-ass god commanded someone to do it.>> ^shinyblurry:
Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.
>> ^Skeeve:
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?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

What I admitted to is that God allows you to have matches, and warns you that you could burn your house down, but if you ignore the warning He will still save your life..and you probably won't play with matches again in the future. If you listened to God you never would have burned your house down in the first place. God created a world in which evil did not exist; that He allowed us to screw up and bring it into the world means we have the freedom to choose. To take that away means we have no choice. What you are advocating is that God doesn't allow you to have matches, or if He does, to continually prevent you from abusing them. That isn't freedom.

As far as God breaking His own commandments, He would really only be subject to two of them, since the rest couldn't apply to Him. Lying, and murder. He never done either. He has never lied. He has killed, but it was never murder. Murder is to kill unlawfully. Under the law the penalty for sin is death. So if you want to point to places in the bible God took life, that was entirely lawful. Over 2 million people are born and die every day..giving and taking life is something God does all the time. That He is patient with us even though we are sinners shows His mercy. That He sent His Son to take our place so we could be forgiven and obtain eternal life shows His love.

>> ^Skeeve:
If I allow someone to burn your house down, only so that I can run in and save you when it is on fire so that you like me, am I a good person? You just admitted that your god does the same thing - allows evil to exist so humans will like him - so how can he be good? Why would anyone worship such a horrible creature?
As for the argument from morality that you have provided, if you provide me with something that is objectively evil, I will provide you with the bible verse in which your evil-ass god commanded someone to do it.>> ^shinyblurry:
Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.
>> ^Skeeve:
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?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

If I allow someone to burn your house down, only so that I can run in and save you when it is on fire so that you like me, am I a good person? You just admitted that your god does the same thing - allows evil to exist so humans will like him - so how can he be good? Why would anyone worship such a horrible creature?

As for the argument from morality that you have provided, if you provide me with something that is objectively evil, I will provide you with the bible verse in which your evil-ass god commanded someone to do it.>> ^shinyblurry:

Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.
>> ^Skeeve:
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?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.

>> ^Skeeve:
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?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

Indeed. God is logically impossible, therefore according to this video, God cannot do God. No wonder he hates masturbation!
>> ^Skeeve:

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?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

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?

Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)

This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

(this time with power points: *quality. Say goodbye to probieland!)

Harris' opening argument has been around for a long time: see Epicurus' trilemma and, just for the lulz, C. S. Lewis' unintentionally hilarious apologist response.