Why do Abrahamoids keep shooting themselves in the foot by insisting on God being benevolent?

Why do Abrahamoids keep shooting themselves in the foot by insisting on God being benevolent? Get rid of that and you negate the most obvious objection to your religion.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because the epicurean paradox uses a nonbiblical definition of omnipotent. So it's much easier to concede that God is not omnipotent as per that definition.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's just making another Tautology. What is omniscience? Eh, whatever God can know. What is omnipotence? Eh, whatever God can do. What is omnibenevolence? Eh, whatever God does. Completely worthless terms.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >nonbiblical definition of omnipotent
      What's the biblical definition?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nothing because actual omnipotence and omniscience isn't in the bible. Just a lot of "god is super duper powerful and knowing." Every time god's supposed omnipotence is mentioned in the bible, it's in passing and basically my dad can beat up your dad, and they never get into the theological implications in the bible itself.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          This is, obviously, the correct answer. But I kinda wanted to see what bullshit he was gonna pull out.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Which god specifically?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >look ma i said it again!

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        So which god?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Any of the ones with divine simplicity

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which are?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            All the Abrahamic conceptions of God. I can't really say any others because they haven't imported Platonic philosophy. But maybe Brahma too and of course The Monad.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Again, which god? And why do atheists only disparage Abrahamic faiths and not go after Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and the millions of indigenous faiths in the Pacific islands? What gives?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Those faiths aren't as obnoxious online (beside schizo dharmic syncretic bullshit) and aren't relevant where I live.
          I've never had a Pajeet make passive aggressive comments about samsara in response to something I posted.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s usually because they’re too busy being mindbroken by their caste system

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Because there are none of them to make seethe and who the frick wants to read The Baghavad Gita or Pali Canon. Also Confucianism is a political philosophy with vaguely mystical trappings. I hope you're not suggesting The Muslim God is the same as the God of the Bible. I don't think the J man would be very happy about that tbh.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they wont read
            figures
            >god of Islam is the same as J man
            Pretty sure that there is at least a God beyond God that transcends all religious categories. Not saying that Muhammad and Jesus are the same but they could have very well the same point of origin.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            moron, even I know Muhammad isn't a deity of any kind.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You know what I meant, butthole. Don’t try and act all high and mighty about purely semantical differences. Besides if I’m such a moron I’ll have you know we morons reproduce more. So you can hem and haw all you want, atheists usually don’t breed enough and the world will likely belong to the “religiongays” you so desperately disparage
            >but people are getting less religious
            Okay but that’s not the own you think it is.
            The world will likely be comprised of a few religious families that have huge extended families. And your kind will suffer attrition as a result of opting for a pet instead of having kids.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >why do people mostly criticise the most common religions where they live
          It's truly a mistery

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just familiarity breeding contempt, Its really no different than a father trying to raise his daughter in a loving family only for her to stop shaving her legs, getting tattoos, getting an awful half shave haircut and becoming a lesbian.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I criticize almost all of those, but eastern religions are closer of existentialist philosophers in practice more often than not so they are not that far away from atheist thought even if I disagree with them (western existentialism is better).

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So it's a philosophical justification? You do realize that religions are not just ethical systems a la what Lessing and Kant thought that can be tossed off at will, right? Theres more to those faiths than just good works.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >religions are not just ethical systems
            but only abrahamic faiths insist on religion and ethics to be fused as one.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >hasn't experienced Hinduism or Jainism or Sikhism

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Because were white. Were trying to remove foreign influence not gather more.
          >oh you dont like israeli influence, well why arent you complaining about confuscianism?

          When confuscianism or hinduism dominates our culture and cuts off our foreskin as babies then itll be worthy of deboonking

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Get rid of that and you negate the most obvious objection to your religion.
      We're fine debunking the objection, no need to avoid it.

      Not sure if you meant this, but this is a great point. Epicurus wasn't actually addressing a monotheist God.

      He knew about Plato which is where Abrahamic theology originates.

      >Plato which is where Abrahamic theology originates
      Nope. Westerners like to conflate idealism with Plato, but the former is universal, the latter is pretty late. Later than Genesis, for one.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        While I agree with you that Plato isn't solely responsible for Christianity there's more to the comparison than idealism.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          If we take Christianity and not Abrahamism in general, there are a few more parallels, you are right. But the proximity is still greatly exaggerateed by non-Christians and non-Platonists. Platonism and even neoplatonism are completely irreconcilable with Christianity. And the hand-picked elements that do match in between the two happen to match with things like Vedic Hinduism as well. They are common features of developed idealistic worldviews. Plato is famous in the West mostly because he put them in a way materialists can understand.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        True. But like I said his problem evil falls flat on the subject of space and time.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >benevolent God would would not give you free will to do evil because evil is le bad

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The fact that heaven exists proves that we can have free will and a world without evil.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The fact that R'lyeh exists proves that we live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I mean yeah if you believed R'lyeh was real I could use that argument against you.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Evil is meant to train you to stop putting dildo in your fricking ass loser.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Benevolent is what God says it is. He is the ultimate arbiter of everything.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >insisting on God being benevolent?
    because fricking Plato

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    This whole arguments violates two fundamental attributes of God: divine Independence and eternality, henceforth, "Epicurus" constructs an indirect fallacy that God by necessity needs to demonstrate a willingness to address evil in order to not be malevolent or weak, however, evil isn't eternal and since God is pure actuality he's not affected by evil, thus, claiming that God is co-dependent upon it violates his eternal attributes and the "paradox" fails.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Literally what the frick are you talking about?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >posts about the Epicurean paradox
        >confused about its refutation
        Why are non-theists like this?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think he means eschatologically speaking, there will be a time when evil does not exist.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's not about evil not affecting God, it's about the motivations and actions of God not lining up with what logically would be the motivations of a perfectly Benevolent deity.
      >Inb4 muh human speculating about the motivations od a deity
      If Gods reasoning and motives are so far above our understanding then calling him benevolent is a ridiculous statement as you cannot possibly understand his approach towards the world and whether he is benevolent or not. "Benevolence" is a trait one can describe a being through human understanding, not God's understanding.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Again the answer is divine independence. The argument assumes in order for god to be something he needs to demonstrate it towards an outside recipient and since god is the only thing that's eternal, so saying there are multiple entities isn't a possibility, the argument violates the definition of God as the suggestion would imply co-dependency.
        If God is omnibenevolent, because of the attribute of divine independence, he doesn't have to express it to anyone else and still be omnibenevolent.

        If you still insists there must be a beneficiary for anyone who outwardly expresses benevolences, than a multi-person, but not multiple beings, god has to exists.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because most people are unconfortable with being ruled by an evil cosmic entity

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I mean, I once saw a Shia Muslim once outright admit Allah isn’t omnibenevolent

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lying is part of their bag of tricks to get people to convert

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Religiongays still think God gives a shit about their moronic made-up human morals
    >after thousands of years
    When will you learn?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      And its that attitude is why Muslims are able to invade secular Europe and not before.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I realise a religious population is better off than a secular one (as long as the religion isn't too moronic) but I can't begin to make myself believe in it, none of the arguments are convincing

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Or just replace of the concept of good and evil with order and chaos, neither being good or evil

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >TFW Epicurus died before Christianity
    What was he responding to with this paradox?
    Greeks never claimed their gods were benevolent
    Did he meet a hebrew and argue with him?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      He knew about Plato which is where Abrahamic theology originates.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's because Epicurus never said this, only those who claim they're objectivists, while ignoring Judeo-Christian evidence, do.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Judeo-Christian
        >evidence
        Pick one

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          *evidence you're willing to accept
          FTFY
          pastelink.net/2w1ne

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can I not understand the ways of the Supreme Being of the Universe? It must he that he's wrong. it cant the fault of my puny monkey brain.

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not sure tbh, is there even basis for God's goodness in the Bible except people stating "he's good bro trust me"

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >God made the world good
    >God made man free to choose between the good and the better
    >God gave people the option of choosing Evil as well, but stating clearly, its not worth it
    >Man chooses knowledge of Evil, now man can choose between Good and Evil

    >God implements failsafes to keep mankind from going to far with it, keeping them busy with work, and making family kind of an ordeal so that there is sacrifice

    >God chooses to hide himself from mankind, cause mankind can no longer stand in the presence of God, hence the fig leaves

    God values our freedom more so than universalism it seems.

    Just a rudimentary reading of Genesis will solve this problem. Funny thing is, Genesis was written by an insignificant desert tribe, yet it solved problems the greeks couldn't solve.

    This was St Augustines great insight that lead him away from Manicheanism to Christianity afaik

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because if God is not good there is zero point in worshiping him, and if you do worship him that implies you're evil too and want evil to win. The same argument goes for "God is incomprehensible"

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >man somehow destroys the abrahamic religions before there were abrahamic religions
    the answer is that pre-helenistic judaism did not believe in a singular, all knowing, all good diety. They believed in a jealous god that was more powerful than all other gods but that was the limit to it.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      this tbh
      christoids and muslims made it grow too far out of the israeli circle

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Abrahamoids are low IQ

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just convert to a non-Abrahamic religion and get it over with.
    >Buddhism (especially Zen and Theravada) has no connection to any of the Abrahamic faiths in any way.

    >Hinduism, while encompassing a seemingly countless array of sects and cults, bears no Abrahamic influence.

    >Zoroastrianism initially developed out of a completely different cultural milieu than Judaism did, but it influenced the eschatology of the three major Abrahamic faiths to varying degrees, so some people may mistake elements of it for being Abrahamic, even though that's not the case at all.
    Those are your three options as far as long-established religions go. Choose one and do it already. You won't regret it.

    Islam is off the table, as much of their theology and ritual is lifted straight from Judaism (hell, even the Hadith and the concept of fiqh, are almost mirror images of Talmud and halakha). Also the Qur'an obviously adapts a lot of material from the OT and NT.

    Christianity is off the table, for obvious reasons (Uses the OT, and worships Jesus, a israeli Rabbi who spent his entire life preaching to israelites about Judaism in israeli languages around the holiest israeli cult site in history).

    Baha'i, Mandaeism, and Druze are off the table, as the latter doesn't accept converts in the first place, and all three either use a variety of Abrahamic texts, or revere a number of Abrahamic figures. Mandaeans even call their leaders Rabbis or Ravs, and one of their words for God is Hayyi Rabbi (Living Great Rabbi).

    If you want to get into new age esoteric cults you can broaden your horizons significantly, but no one takes those seriously (outside of their own adherents).

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Islam literally says it was sent down by God to fix the corruptions that christianity and judaism have.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That is what it claims as an Abrahmic religion with chiefly Abrahmic concerns.

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Dont care been disprobed a long time a go

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Stockholm/Daddy issues.

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    If people didn't think god was good they would be more prone to joining cults and performing rituals to other entities.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *