If God is Love, then an act of God is an act of Love, no? — Janus

Scriptures say that god created all things for his pleasure. Both the good and the evil.

What pleasure do you think god would get from creating evil?

If you do not see god as creating evil, then who is his co-creator that did?

Regards
DL

I do not believe in God, but I believe in good and evil - evil tends to arise when risks are taken, or trust is expected. — Schzophr

I understand and agree with you except for your " or trust is expected".

Are you just talking of a breach of trust?

If so, + 1.

Regards
DL

If God exists and He is all good and all powerful why does He allow evil? If there is no satisfactory answer to this question does it disprove God? — MysticMonist

I do not see a conflict between god and nature for evil, --- not that god exists, --- and see human to human evil as a small part of the greater good of man's ongoing evolution.

I wrote the following more for religionists so excuse the language.

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

This link speak to theistic evolution.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pope-would-you-accept-evolution-and-big-bang-180953166/?no-ist

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards
DL

For example, "the love of money is the root of all evil" is often taken by many to mean that money is evil or it inspires evil acts. But, if it were given a more logical translation and explanation, then perhaps there would be no such misunderstanding. — BrianW

Care to give us your logical translation, as money is indeed the root of all evil, when you concider that it means wealth and sustenance, which is what we compete for which is the root of all human to hunman evil.

Or is that what you meant by a logical and reasoned explanation?

They don't know what spiritual teachings really are, and what value or significance they have or are expected to have. — BrianW

What are spiritual teachings? Give a couple of examples please showing their value.

they are a different class or type of knowledge and should be treated as such. — BrianW

Show what you mean with an example of two different classes of knowledge that are treated the same way.

This is what I usually call regressing to the "earth is the centre of the universe theory." — BrianW

Spiritually, the earth is the center of the universe.

You seem to be tying spiritual thinking to matter and this quote seems to say not to do so.

John 6 ; 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

You use the larger bunch of matter, the universe, while ignoring that the earth can easily be seen as the center and most important part of the universe to us..

So, what is the purpose of spirituality?

From my perspective, it is to teach us that the earth is not the centre of the universe, — BrianW

My spirituality and religion, Gnostic Christianity, says that it is.

Please allow me to get long winded on this.

I wrote this to refute the false notion that Gnostic Christians do not like matter and reality that the inquisitors propagated to justify their many murders of my religions originators. It shows that Christians should actually hate matter and not Gnostic Christians.

The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Gen 3; 17 Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
-----------

The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"
"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL

and think that technology, science, and philosophy, should replace the values of religion. — Josh Alfred

To the intelligentsia, wee already have.

Regards
DL

but you give no evidence showing that all representations encourage hatred and violence. — ralfy

I would have to have access to all human consciousness' to do so.

If you have not recognized, with all the religious wars, even between sects of the same religion, that religions and their beliefs and icons create a lot of strife, you have a problem.

Regards
DL

History? Where? There is nothing in your posts to me that shows that. — ralfy

If you do not recognize that our mainstream religions are homophobic and misogynous, and have been that for eons, then -----

Regards
DL

Right, I wasn't saying your thinking was flawed. What is flawed is the idea that a simple redistribution of wealth (a check arrives in 3 billion mailboxes) would fix everything. — Bitter Crank

https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

If you can visualize at all, just imagine how few bricks, so to speak, we would have to move from the extreme right of this graph to the extreme left before the ideal would be reached.

Just a few. Right?

Regards
DL

thats fair. — christian2017

I like a man who can discern fairness.

Regards
DL

You're committing hasty generalizations. — ralfy

I am recognizing history, and you did not refute anything.

Regards
DL

True, but the numbers are due to level off and start lowering in 20 odd years or so.
I think we will level at 9.5 billion. The earth can handle it and with such a rich world, we can afford it.

It will be hell though if we do not get better organized in how we deal with the changes in where populations are as global climate changes our environment.

You are correct in your view of trickle up and also on the actual pittance that is required to end poverty.

Regards
DL

What are some things that would be important in this new world wide religion or system of beliefs? — christian2017

With transparency and openness being promised by many who are running for office, future religionists, if there are any, and given that atheists and other secular people are opening what could be called Mystery Schools, as they were called in the past, atheist church today, then any religion worthy of the name, and this is directly from god, they will have to think more demographically and sign

The more stupid religions today that are based on lies and hidden things, will have to stop badmouthing the sign of the beast, which is ones position in a given in or on a socio economic demographic pyramid.

With computerization and globalization coming in the relatively near future, people will see that that is the only way to end with a much fairer and peaceful co-existence with everyone.

We will have to get past this, hopefully, our last stupid period in history, where we have pussy grabbers and pedophile protectors for presidents and popes.

Stupid and immoral is as stupid and immoral does.

Regards
DL

No. A god is not a god unless someone gives him that title.

Gnostic Christians ignore the Roman created Jesus as he is quite immoral, but, if like us, you read Jesus who is more of an Eastern mystic or guru, which is how we Gnostic Christians view him, then you will ponder what he meant when he said that when two are gathered in god's name, he is there. To Jesus, there had to be at least two who agreed on who god was and that is when the label can be applied.

As an Eastern mystic, this is what he taught and what the church never quotes as the Gnostic Jesus wants to free us from religions while the church wants to slave us to it.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Presumably it is an essential attribute of God that She or He is, at least, a more powerful being than any existent being. — alan1000

That depend how you define power.

In some terms, like reproduction, man is better and more powerful than god as we can reproduce many true offspring while god can only reproduce one half breed chimera after cuckolding Joseph.

Strange that an all powerful god became a deadbeat dad, who dropped his bundle off for others to care for.

Also, for an omni everything god, he is sure incompetent.

He screwed up heaven with Satan. Screwed up Eden with the talking serpent. Had to use genocide to reboot everything after Noah and still fucked up so bad he had to have his only son murdered.

Yahweh is quite the loser and an immoral prick.

Regards
DL

when it comes to following in Jesus' footsteps is highly unreasonable, and the truth is that nobody can expect to be entirely like Jesus because we haven't seen the good, the bad, and the ugly of Jesus' — Maureen

I see more than one Jesus in scriptures. Many do not see the Gnostic Christian side of Jesus as the church never quotes that Jesus as he wants to free us from religion, not enslave us to it the way the Rome created immoral wimp does. The Gnostic Jesus asks that we use him as a mantra so as to activate our pineal gland and meditate with our full mind and brain via our third or single eye.

Note what the church never dares quote. Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

or for any church to expect anyone to make such a comparison. — Maureen

They will not because if they did and told the rubes that they did not need the church, they would lose revenues and revenues are what religions are all about.

That is why they try to sell their immoral genocidal god and Roman Jesus.

They want slaves. Not free thinkers.

Regards
DL

A step to more intolerance. — Bodhisattva

Correct. Against the intolerant hypocrites and their intolerant one-upmanship and violence in the community.

Religious hatred is based on ignorance. — Bodhisattva

I agree that the religious are ignorant of decent morals and that is why their supernatural imaginary gods are such vile slave wanting pricks.

We see religious people as "different" to us. — Bodhisattva

Indeed. Inferior as their ideal ideology includes the adoration of a genocidal son murdering god who they can somehow see as good.

That is likely why many hate them and there beliefs, which include the notion that women and gays are inferior to heterosexual men. So much for equality for women and gays.

But, we need to see the bonds of common humanity. — Bodhisattva

I will let you bond with them and their inquisitions and jihads.

We all weep when we lose a loved one. — Bodhisattva

True, but not for joy when it is a terrorist blowing other up along with himself. His loved ones praise such immoral insanity.

Our shared humanity should help us be tolerant . — Bodhisattva

Indeed, but when your holy book tells you to curse, denigrate and kill all non-believers, that is hardly showing tolerance.

There is a place for both religious belief and secularism in society. — Bodhisattva

The belief, sure, but a country must decide if it is secular or religious and push that as much as it can, especially with the more vile and immoral religions.

We should young people to understand different cultures. — Bodhisattva

Absolutely, and not just hate others because they eat pigs or shell fish or believe in equality for all.

Knowledge leads to tolerance. — Bodhisattva

Not if what you think should be tolerated is intolerance of others, even in your own religion, should they be women or gays.

Regards
DL

They are part of self-expression. — ralfy

True.
A self-expression, that insults people needlessly with their hypocritical one-upmanship.

If I self-express and call you an a hole just for thinking as you do, would you like it and would that ease tension in our community?

Do you like inquisitions and jihads and thought control?

Regards
DL

Because not all "public displays of religiosity" involve "one-upmanship" or are "public insults to the secular." — ralfy

??

If not one-upmanship, then why?

Regards
DL

andrewk — andrewk

I have no need to as I have shown that all schools can expel.

Regards
DL

This also counters the belief that a ban should be imposed on ALL public religious representations. — ralfy

Why do you value the one-upmanship that public displays of religiosity show?

Why do you like public insults to the secular who just want to be left in peace and without the insults against them that the religious do or make?

Regards
DL

If you have any hard evidence that the Canadian public school system can permanently expel students, I would be interested to see it. — andrewk

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/safeschools/suspexp.html

Regards
DL

whollyrolling — whollyrolling

Bite me.

Regards
DL

I'm well aware of the "happiest places to live" stats--the top positions belong to a few ethnically and religiously homogeneous nations. — whollyrolling

Yes, and you might have noticed that the less religious a nation is, the more peaceful, happy and less violent it is.

We haven't begun a debate yet because in order to do so people have to define terms and conditions to avoid running around in semantic circles and getting caught up dispelling lies. — whollyrolling

You want to have a philosophical debate and put the cart before the horse.
What you suggest, has been reversed by philosophers who know that such a task happens after the debate and not before. If we cannot start by using plain language with the usual dictionary definitions, the debate will stall in the definition of words and the real discussion will never happen.

Who in hell told you the stupidity that you are trying to implement here?

Not how we can now discuss without analysing and defining the word stupidity, which we likely not define any better than the dictionaries.

The rest of your post is just childish whining. Get better or get lost.

Regards
DL

As far as propagation, no one's conducting an "inquisition" in America. — whollyrolling

Inquisitions and jihads are tools to either kill the opposition or use force of discrimination and denigration to convert.

Only a blind fool would not see the discrimination and denigration of women and gays perpetrated by the mainstream religions as not being inquisition and jihad tactics.

Regards
DL

America isn't perfect, and I haven't claimed it to be, but it's the best system currently available. — whollyrolling

I see a full blown delusion.

The U.S. system is proving to be garbage as compared to many of the free countries.

Now if the U.S. walked it's talk you might have a point but it does not and is quite low on the best country to live in stats. Inconvenient stats in your case that you do not seem to know about.

Regards
DL

then of course the task for the public system is more difficult. — andrewk

Why? They can expel as well and if the person from the private or catholic system does not tow their line, the public system will expel him or her as well.

Regards
DL

Listen to yourself. Preach. Lie. Mock. Lie. — whollyrolling

So many accusations, without refuting anything or showing the lie.

You win this debate buddy. Yours is a great philosophy, for the delusional.

Regards
DL

That might go against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. — ralfy

The one that no one has signed up to and is mostly ignored even by the free world?

I don't think that it was ever intended to negate the freedom from religion for non-theists, but they sure tried to end the freedom of thought and criticism of the more vile religious ideologies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UTdKxCz2FIQ

Regards
DL

You need research to reasonably conclude that a ban on all religious representation would increase violence within religious communities? What planet do you live on? — creativesoul

Who where you reading. Not me as I never said that the above.
I say that ridding ourselves of religious symbolism in the public space reduces hate and violence.

Regards
DL

I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm afraid there's no good alternative to religion given our present condition. I'm particularly concerned about the lack of thinking skills of the general populace (including myself of course) and taking away religious beliefs would add up to undermining the harmony in society even if such harmony is infected with tribalism, communalism, etc. — TheMadFool

I agree that the school system as well as our religious system want to create sheeple instead of intelligent thinkers. Sheeple are easier to fleece while thinkers are harder to manage because we demand better than what we have.

Secularism does not effect beliefs. It effects removing expressions of beliefs in the public square, where it does not belong as it creates hate and violence. Religions are antithesis to the harmony you seek.

Regards
DL

Is this a philosophy thread or a preach and spit venom thread? — whollyrolling

I am a feisty kind of guy who hates B. S. and the supernatural. Get used to me or best to ignore me.
Whiner. Just kidding, this time.
Regards
DL

(Why they are so incensed that I don’t follow suit, however, continues to be a mystery to me.) 1 — Bart Ehrman

I like Bart as he is an honest researcher.
He does not understand Gnostic Christianity much though but has Christianity and the bible pegged correctly as myth.

Regards
DL

The largely non-religious founders of the US thankfully had the foresight to enshrine the right to practice one's religion in the Constitution because they saw first hand the oppression that arose from religious suppression by government. — Hanover

You kid. Right? That or you are deluded.
Then, as now, there is basically a religious test for your lying politicians.
I don't care how the religious sheeple believe.
Secularism just says to get your beliefs out of the public square where they do not belong as they create hate and violence.
Or hadn't you noticed?

Regards
DL

Are you confident that Catholic schools never expel students in Canada? — andrewk

I know for a fact that expulsions do occur. The reasons would likely vary.
I do not think it is a systematic culling of any kind though.
I do have a link somewhere that did report a school selecting students, basically by social class, that happens a lot in the private school system and I am not surprised if some Catholic schools do it.
That was not in Canada though if I recall correctly. It was in England.
In overall terms of education, I do not care if our kids go to private, public or Catholic schools, as long as they get the best education we can afford them.
Regards
DL

All I'm saying is for most people it's religion that keeps then on the right side of the law. — TheMadFool

If one needs to belong to a homophobic and misogynous religion and discriminate and denigrate women and gays and retard the progress of the rest of the world in their moral thinking, and refuse equality to all people, while continuing their lower levels of inquisitions and jihads, I do not feel it that the few benefits of religions are worth the greater harm that they do.

If you think you should live by the Golden Rule, change the labels in this quote to women, minorities, gays or children being brainwashed by religions and it shows what we should be thinking and doing for each other.

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

Regards
DL

whollyrolling — whollyrolling

You defend religions that are obviously and flagrantly homophobic and misogynous by getting a few example to the contrary and which I concede exist, just what a hypocrite does by not mentioning that they are just the few within the many.

As to your other requests, asked in an uncouth way.

Bite me.

Regards
DL

What about an alternative to religion that isn't another religion? — TheMadFool

Secularism as described in the French term laïcité.

Freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. It takes religion out of the public's face and thus eases tensions.

I will assume you are not a Christian.

Tell me, how would you feel if you were on a subway sitting across from a Christian with a little sign on his lapel that said, "Turn or burn" or "Jesus saves"?

How do you think a Muslim would feel?

Regards
DL

Name me an alternative to religion that has a good side? — TheMadFool

Gnostic Christianity. That is why they used the inquisitions on us.

They knew that our view of god was better and we had to die as they could not best our morals and ways of thinking.

The same applies to Karaite Jews and Buddhism. We all put man above god where we belong, given that mankind has invented all the gods.

You might be calling those I named religions, and they are mostly considered that, but I put all thinking systems under the title of ideologies, be they philosophies or theologies.

Regards
DL

TheMadFool — TheMadFool

LOL.

Religions say kill them. It will teach them how to love.

You give value to that do you?

Religions have institutionalized homophobia and misogyny and a denial of equality to better than half the planet.

You go ahead and speak for it. I will not.

Regards
DL

Violence against the religious? — creativesoul

Violence against everyone. The religious might just deserve it more given that they deny all people equal rights. Gays and women are stupid if they stay where they are not seen as equal.

Banning all public religious representations would increase the amount of hatred and violence coming from within the religious community. — creativesoul

That is not the case where religions have banned atheism nor where Muslim countries have banned the apparel the O.P. speaks about.

Is that your opinion/speculation or can you cite something with research and not just opinion?

Regards
DL