The guy uses a literal easy to mock God concept. He hasn't explored the world of spirituality at all. not that anyone is supposed to or has a mandate to do so. but if your going to try to ridicule and negate God, one should at least step out of the narrow mind set of the fundemetal God viewpoint as put forth in the Christian Judaic traditions... He is making millions off the backs of the lowest common denominator of atheists. The non thinking wannabe atheist who can't think past a metaphorical concept or a corrupted God concept. itsa scam....a huge non thinking scam
There are many logical and reasonable answers to the so-called "problem" of evil. The problem actually lies in the framing of the question. Many atheistic syllogisms concerning evil have at least one faulty premise in that the premise itself is debatable, and not necessarily true.
que? No speakie inglish? Do you know what the life of all mass is? What is light to the life of all that exists? IF you dont reply with the answer that is equal to all, then you are hawking on the 'main failure'. each are on the same quest: the pursuit of truth. It is the universal pursuit of EVERY conscious life, at some point in their lives. the abrahamic sects have caused an idolatry of mankind; by dividing the minds from 'the garden' and 'creating' a 'god' on a thrown (as being separate from themselves) and the relgions have made more money than all of them combined, off the lowly of ignorance by sustaining the beliefs as 'theists' nature aint what is corrupt; mankind created the 'god(s)' as metaphors to wannabe's it's a scam....a huge non thinking, eyepopping scam dred the doc that tells another to find answers in theological bull love the light of your very soul and learn of the life that is equal to all
religious people have cause more evil on this earth, than every devil combined for example: morals are not from religion and religious pukes believe it is only of a 'god' that mankind can be good
Maybe that's because Dawkins doesn't really care squat about what you believe, he cares (if I understand him correctly) about the influence religion has. As you might know, quasi-spiritual, poorly defined or hippie-like religions have very little power in the world, least of all in the Western world.
There's not really a good clear answer existing until today. Lacantius (~250-317 AD) quoted: Either God wants to eliminate the evil and can not do it, then God is weak, This is not true. Or he can do it and does not want to do so. Then God is jealous, which is strange to him. Or he does not want to do it and can not do it, then he is weak and resentful at the same time, not God. Or he may want it and can it what is proper for God alone: So - Where is the evil coming from and why he does not taketh away? So you can see the problem is well known since the time of the first Christians. It could be - I don't know - that we will never find an answer in this world here. But what we know today for sure: God shared the evil with us on "his" cross (indeed it's our cross - we made it). He was not hiding himselve - he came into "our" world (indeed it's his world), shared his life as a human being with us and showed to us what he is ready to do. He gives us orientation in the hope of easter. The grave is empty. http://youtu.be/pyML7fcVVeI
People with legs have caused more evil on this earth, than every devil combined. Revolution - sorry: amputation - is the solution of all problems. http://youtu.be/XWhlbZ9gfCc
Problem of evil is not an argument against theism, it is just an argument against specific theism which supposes one benevolent, omnipotent god. Malicious or indifferent gods, gods that are not omnipotent and/or some special cases of polytheism (where gods have goals relating to other gods rather than humans) have no problem with evil. Most religious people tend to fall into this group, but the OP suggests an undefined, vague, non-omnipotent and/or metaphorical (ie made up) god or gods. The vagueness of the suggested gods indicate that the most prominent arguments against it would be along the lines of absent proof and inadequate divinity.
To quote my friends at the Atheist Community of Austin: The Problem of Evil says nothing about whether or not God exists. It just shows that if God does exist, he's a dick.
You are right: People who are believing their [non-]god is [also] evil don't have any problem. By the way: I'm a Christian - not a theist or atheist. I don't know what theists or atheists have to do or not to do. http://youtu.be/fv2kmFZTDeY
And if god is a woman and/or not existing? What makes the "problem of the existance of the evil" better in this case? http://youtu.be/mXdY7SWinyg http://youtu.be/xg-YQsXNfeo
Evil is entirely subjective. At least if there is no God, "evil" is a man-made only phenomena that can be address rather than a divinely enforced aspect of reality.
That's what you are thinking. I know nothing about that I am a theist following an ideology with the name "theism". The early Christians were for example often called atheists, because Christians don't believe in gods - although a Christian is able to believe in one gods. ... I never thought about - but now I see it's indeed a little complex. http://youtu.be/LWPz8jF7MfY
So you are saying that you don't believe in God, because here is the definition of a theist: Noun 1. theist - one who believes in the existence of a god or gods http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theist BTW, provide a source of your claim that early Christians were called atheists.
Luckily, you're not an early Christian. Nor are you being called an atheist. The definition of a theist is "Theism is the belief that at least one deity exists" or "Belief in the existence of a god or gods" and so on (depending on source). If you have another definition, you must either inform us of that definition and accept that it has the same connection to reality as calling your dog "the sun" and expect it to shine, or accept that you are not writing English. I'm sure Romans and early Christians had different definitions for different words, but the above are what we are referring to. Personally, I'd say they were incorrect in calling Christians atheist (unless their beliefs were very different from today's Christians). The problem of evil is a problem if you believe an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient god exists. If you don't, I'll leave it to other Christians to decide whether you really are a Christian.
Early Christianity is not all that different from Taoism or Buddhism, except that it uses forgiveness as the connection to the godhead. I agree that it would be incorrect to call them atheists, but I also don't think that they were truly theists. More like Spinoza's pantheists, in that they didn't separate God from creation. Modern day Christianity, descended from the later Roman Christians, is much more pagan in that it vests power in a deity who is separate (including separate from a placed called "hell") and holds certain places and objects sacred.
why? is spirituality anymore deserving of exploration than children's fairy tales? do you speak for atheists? how do you know what we concept we have or have not examined?
