Is God a malevolent being?

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

Except that it adds a bunch of rather silly "magic rituals", and rather inane (in my opinion) Randian political philosophy to such. And is basically a membership organization after your money for all the misfit goth kids to join, as far as I'm concerned. Meh.

They actually make very little money besides the books sales and feel that it fills a useful role in mixer society.

I wouldn't know I suppose.

I read the Satanic Bible back when I was 18 and a super super angry anti-theist. And even then, I just sort of went ehh...

As long as they don't agitate too hard for Randian ideas, I don't have much a problem with it though. I just see it kind of along the lines of people who dress up in Star Trek uniforms and go to conventions. As long as they don't take themselves too seriously, it probably has some decent enough value in the minds of those who participate, so I don't have much a problem with it. Just not my particular thing.

[Primordial Luxa]

They actually make very little money besides the books sales and feel that it fills a useful role in mixer society.

I wouldn't know I suppose.

I read the Satanic Bible back when I was 18 and a super super angry anti-theist. And even then, I just sort of went ehh...

As long as they don't agitate too hard for Randian ideas, I don't have much a problem with it though. I just see it kind of along the lines of people who dress up in Star Trek uniforms and go to conventions. As long as they don't take themselves too seriously, it probably has some decent enough value in the minds of those who participate, so I don't have much a problem with it. Just not my particular thing.

Yes it's a very open to interpretation religion. But I think that's it appeal, it was designed as a modern religion and that's something I have to applaud. Most religions simply aren't suited for the modern era but satanism is.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

I wouldn't know I suppose.

I read the Satanic Bible back when I was 18 and a super super angry anti-theist. And even then, I just sort of went ehh...

As long as they don't agitate too hard for Randian ideas, I don't have much a problem with it though. I just see it kind of along the lines of people who dress up in Star Trek uniforms and go to conventions. As long as they don't take themselves too seriously, it probably has some decent enough value in the minds of those who participate, so I don't have much a problem with it. Just not my particular thing.

Yes it's a very open to interpretation religion. But I think that's it appeal, it was designed as a modern religion and that's something I have to applaud. Most religions simply aren't suited for the modern era but satanism is.

Fair enough.

Just, on a political level, I really, really, really dislike Objectivism, which (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in understanding it this way) seems to be pretty fundamental to the viewpoint of the Church of Satan. So if I were to go that way, I'd probably prefer Unitarianism, which strikes me as a lot more neutral.

[Primordial Luxa]

Yes it's a very open to interpretation religion. But I think that's it appeal, it was designed as a modern religion and that's something I have to applaud. Most religions simply aren't suited for the modern era but satanism is.

Fair enough.

Just, on a political level, I really, really, really dislike Objectivism, which (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in understanding it this way) seems to be pretty fundamental to the viewpoint of the Church of Satan. So if I were to go that way, I'd probably prefer Unitarianism, which strikes me as a lot more neutral.

It is to a degree, there a slight focus on being independent and mental stable, as well as thinking for you self but yes It can be very objectivist at times.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

Fair enough.

Just, on a political level, I really, really, really dislike Objectivism, which (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in understanding it this way) seems to be pretty fundamental to the viewpoint of the Church of Satan. So if I were to go that way, I'd probably prefer Unitarianism, which strikes me as a lot more neutral.

It is to a degree, there a slight focus on being independent and mental stable, as well as thinking for you self but yes It can be very objectivist at times.

Fair enough. I'm definitely quite strongly existentialist in my own mindset, which generally would encompass the above. Just not much a fan of individualism as a social structure. So meh, I'm probably more a Unitarian than Satanist, if I had to join a religious group.

But so long as they aren't trying to implement a theocracy (on whoever's terms) on society as a whole, I don't really have a problem with them.

[Nicer potlimitomaha]

First of all I would like to state that I am an antitheist, and thus I am opposed to religion as a whole (with minor exceptions like Buddhism) as well as the concept of intelligent design and, as a result, I am also opposed to the idea of a supernatural, omnipotent and omniscient being that supposedly created the universe in its present state, i.e. a God. The primary focus of my argument, however, shall be focused around the God known as "Yahweh", who is known to billions across the world as the God of the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament) and the God of the Torah and Judaism as a whole.

Your perfectly ready to attack the religion of 13.3 million Jews but you won't critisize Islamwhich is practised by 1.1 billion. It's only the Jews and Christians that ever get any critisism.

[Sulamalik]

First of all I would like to state that I am an antitheist, and thus I am opposed to religion as a whole (with minor exceptions like Buddhism) as well as the concept of intelligent design and, as a result, I am also opposed to the idea of a supernatural, omnipotent and omniscient being that supposedly created the universe in its present state, i.e. a God. The primary focus of my argument, however, shall be focused around the God known as "Yahweh", who is known to billions across the world as the God of the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament) and the God of the Torah and Judaism as a whole.

Your perfectly ready to attack the religion of 13.3 million Jews but you won't critisize Islamwhich is practised by 1.1 billion. It's only the Jews and Christians that ever get any critisism.

The Qur'an is a lot less into illuminating the actions of God. Couple that with the fact that most Generalities don't live in societies that would lead them to be familar with the religion, it's fair to assume the OP preferred an informed critique.

Muhammed split the moon though, the jerk.

Also, fatwa envy ahoy

[Libertarian California]

And that's what we all should do.
Intact there actual a name for what you described "LaVeyism"

Except that it adds a bunch of rather silly "magic rituals", and rather inane (in my opinion) Randian political philosophy to such. And is basically a membership organization after your money for all the misfit goth kids to join, as far as I'm concerned. Meh.

Yeah, my religion is like that, but without the stupid rituals and devil worship.

[The USOT]

First of all I would like to state that I am an antitheist, and thus I am opposed to religion as a whole (with minor exceptions like Buddhism) as well as the concept of intelligent design and, as a result, I am also opposed to the idea of a supernatural, omnipotent and omniscient being that supposedly created the universe in its present state, i.e. a God. The primary focus of my argument, however, shall be focused around the God known as "Yahweh", who is known to billions across the world as the God of the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament) and the God of the Torah and Judaism as a whole.

Your perfectly ready to attack the religion of 13.3 million Jews but you won't critisize Islamwhich is practised by 1.1 billion. It's only the Jews and Christians that ever get any critisism.

Dont worry, there are plenty of us who think Islam is just as easily critiqued and laughable.

[Natair]

Your perfectly ready to attack the religion of 13.3 million Jews but you won't critisize Islamwhich is practised by 1.1 billion. It's only the Jews and Christians that ever get any critisism.

Dont worry, there are plenty of us who think Islam is just as easily critiqued and laughable.

Hell, I live in America. Think about what WE used to think of Islam.

[Reggae Is Coming to the Nation]

Jah is loving, benevolent, compassionate and forgiving.

[Transhuman Proteus]

First of all I would like to state that I am an antitheist, and thus I am opposed to religion as a whole (with minor exceptions like Buddhism) as well as the concept of intelligent design and, as a result, I am also opposed to the idea of a supernatural, omnipotent and omniscient being that supposedly created the universe in its present state, i.e. a God. The primary focus of my argument, however, shall be focused around the God known as "Yahweh", who is known to billions across the world as the God of the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament) and the God of the Torah and Judaism as a whole.

Your perfectly ready to attack the religion of 13.3 million Jews but you won't critisize Islamwhich is practised by 1.1 billion. It's only the Jews and Christians that ever get any critisism.

Nonsense, Islam and many of its practitioners have unique faults worth criticizing, and then there are features it shares with all major religions that are worthy of raised eye brows. Just like all faiths to some degree or another.

You'll generally encounter more of it towards Christianity in threads like this because it is a mostly western forum, mostly with posters from countries where Christianity is the predominant faith and threads like this are based on Christian (and Hebrew by way of the OT) world views. Going on about the way God is portrayed in the Koran would be practically off topic.

[Xathranaar]

First of all I would like to state that I am an antitheist, and thus I am opposed to religion as a whole (with minor exceptions like Buddhism) as well as the concept of intelligent design and, as a result, I am also opposed to the idea of a supernatural, omnipotent and omniscient being that supposedly created the universe in its present state, i.e. a God. The primary focus of my argument, however, shall be focused around the God known as "Yahweh", who is known to billions across the world as the God of the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament) and the God of the Torah and Judaism as a whole.

Your perfectly ready to attack the religion of 13.3 million Jews but you won't critisize Islamwhich is practised by 1.1 billion. It's only the Jews and Christians that ever get any critisism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPkuWf6IDZY

[Kilobugya]

If he existed, he would be either grossly incompetent, malevolent, or just so alien to our own values than "malevolent" and "benevolent" can't really apply. But definitely not benevolent. That said, there is no such thing as a "god", so ...

[Buddha Punk Robot Monks]

Not spamming. You asked for proof of my argument that there was a lot of bad philosophy in New Atheism and that atheists don't take the time to learn philosophy or anything about Christianity before opening their mouth. I gave it to you.

No. I didn't ask you for any such proof. Someone else did. All I did was point out that your sources were not reputable and therefore they aren't evidence for anything. Now you're literally spamming shit about a topic that isn't the topic of this thread.

Of course its the topic of the thread. Now that you have probably cooled down I will explain that my basic argument is that atheists, having bad philosophy, haven't taken the time to understand the basics of religions like Christianity and thus they paint a picture of a God that 1. nobody believes in, 2. is a complete caricature. You guys are more fundy than fundamentalists when it comes to interpreting scripture.

Any ways Luke Muehlhauser sums up this entire thread:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8854

That isn't the topic of this thread. Stop spamming/derailing.

The topic of the thread is if God is a malevolent being. I am arguing that the caricature of God presented in this thread is one absolutely nobody believes in. How is that not relevant to the topic of the thread?

[Mavorpen]

Of course its the topic of the thread. Now that you have probably cooled down I will explain that my basic argument is that atheists, having bad philosophy, haven't taken the time to understand the basics of religions like Christianity and thus they paint a picture of a God that 1. nobody believes in, 2. is a complete caricature. You guys are more fundy than fundamentalists when it comes to interpreting scripture.

The topic of the thread is whether God is a malevolent being. The topic of the thread is NOT about you whining about atheists.

The topic of the thread is if God is a malevolent being. I am arguing that the caricature of God presented in this thread is one absolutely nobody believes in. How is that not relevant to the topic of the thread?

Spamming us with shitty links about people whining that atheists suck isn't on topic. At all.

[Alowwvia]

>lel ponies so fonny n randum

Yeah I'm going to take this discussion seriously, sure.


An yeah, the Abrahamic God is a fucking tool.

[The Archregimancy]

Spamming us with shitty links about people whining that atheists suck isn't on topic. At all.

I'll gently and politely remind you that it's not your job to decide whether or not someone is spamming or derailing.

If you think BPRM is indeed spamming or derailing, please report it in Moderation.

[Mavorpen]

Spamming us with shitty links about people whining that atheists suck isn't on topic. At all.

I'll gently and politely remind you that it's not your job to decide whether or not someone is spamming or derailing.

I didn't say it was.

[Buddha Punk Robot Monks]

Of course its the topic of the thread. Now that you have probably cooled down I will explain that my basic argument is that atheists, having bad philosophy, haven't taken the time to understand the basics of religions like Christianity and thus they paint a picture of a God that 1. nobody believes in, 2. is a complete caricature. You guys are more fundy than fundamentalists when it comes to interpreting scripture.

The topic of the thread is whether God is a malevolent being. The topic of the thread is NOT about you whining about atheists.

And I am answering by saying no and that atheists should take the time to learn about Christianity first before they start threads like this again. Undermining the premise of the thread is very much on topic.

The topic of the thread is if God is a malevolent being. I am arguing that the caricature of God presented in this thread is one absolutely nobody believes in. How is that not relevant to the topic of the thread?

Spamming us with shitty links about people whining that atheists suck isn't on topic. At all.[/quote]If you would bother to read them, you will see that they are quite good, written by intelligent people. And this one is a, academic dissertation published in ProQuest. Reputable enough for you? (Incidentally it indicts philosophers of religions as well).

[Mavorpen]

And I am answering by saying no and that atheists should take the time to learn about Christianity first before they start threads like this again. Undermining the premise of the thread is very much on topic

First actually undermine the premise of the thread

If you would bother to read them, you will see that they are quite good, written by intelligent people. And this one is a, academic dissertation published in ProQuest. Reputable enough for you?

No. Not reputable at all.

[BushSucks-istan]

I had imaginary friends when I was little, but I grew out of it.

[Buddha Punk Robot Monks]

If you don't consider ProQuest reputable, then there is no help for you.

Here's some more scholarly sources:
http://people.nnu.edu/ktimpe/research/new_atheists.pdf
http://organicism.org/ojs/index.php/ajp ... le/view/80

Abstract of that last one:

This paper sheds light on the manner in which Hartshorne, or a Hartshornean, would respond to Dawkins and the other New Atheists on the question of empirical atheism. In it, I agree with Hartshorne that empirical atheism is “bad grammar” in that it confuses the religious meaning of God’s existence for an empirical existence. But certain similarities between Hartshorne and Dawkins in particular prevent the possibility of a successful Hartshornean response to Dawkins. Hartshorne’s critique of empirical atheism presupposes a certain understanding of religious language that Dawkins also assumes, namely, that it is hypothetical in nature. I find that this is problematic because it turns religion into a competing system of interpretation to science and it ignores, among other things, the expressive nature of religious language. Although Hartshorne, like Dawkins, calls for paying significant attention to the nature of religious discourse, and he does pay closer attention to it than Dawkins does, I argue that both he and Dawkins are selective in their interpretations of religious discourse. However, the ultimate aim in bringing Hartshorne and Dawkins into discussion is not simply to adjudicate between them. Rather, the paper demonstrates that neither thinker does justice to the nature of religious discourse, and that a third alternative which goes beyond the empirical and metaphysical approaches to religion is required. This third approach might be described as an active, or pragmatic, approach.

And I am answering by saying no and that atheists should take the time to learn about Christianity first before they start threads like this again. Undermining the premise of the thread is very much on topic

First actually undermine the premise of the thread

I have already done so. The view of God a s a malevolent being is one which nobody shares, whether they are Christian, Jewish or Muslim. People don't want to worship a cruel God.

Therefore this threads caricature of God as such relies on a literalist interpretation of scripture that goes beyond even the fundamentalist dispensationalists, who generally agree that God is fully revealed in Christ, not the Old Testament (therefore the New Testament superceded the Old), even if this Christ is exceedingly war like (just read the Left Behind books and you'll see what I mean). An intellectually honest response to Christianity, on the other hand, would have taken the time to learn what Christians actually think about God, rather than making up their minds for them and attacking an entirely straw man God of the atheist's own creation.

All this does not mean I am anti-atheist. I just wish they would take the time to learn about my religion first before attacking it. Then we might actually have an intelligible conversation.

[Mavorpen]

If you don't consider ProQuest reputable, then there is no help for you.

You do realize that your source states you are wrong, right?

I advance the thesis that many of the indictments of the New Atheists are valid but that these authors cannot be accused of philosophical and theological illiteracy. Rather, their work seis consistent with, and legitimated by, the dominant views and methods of contemporary Anglo-American philosophy of religion.

In other words, your claim that atheists simply don't understand Christianity or they are philosophically deficient is factually incorrect.

Here's some more scholarly sources:
http://people.nnu.edu/ktimpe/research/new_atheists.pdf

Let me guess: you didn't read any of this one, did you?

http://organicism.org/ojs/index.php/ajp ... le/view/80

Abstract of that last one:

This paper sheds light on the manner in which Hartshorne, or a Hartshornean, would respond to Dawkins and the other New Atheists on the question of empirical atheism. In it, I agree with Hartshorne that empirical atheism is “bad grammar” in that it confuses the religious meaning of God’s existence for an empirical existence. But certain similarities between Hartshorne and Dawkins in particular prevent the possibility of a successful Hartshornean response to Dawkins. Hartshorne’s critique of empirical atheism presupposes a certain understanding of religious language that Dawkins also assumes, namely, that it is hypothetical in nature. I find that this is problematic because it turns religion into a competing system of interpretation to science and it ignores, among other things, the expressive nature of religious language. Although Hartshorne, like Dawkins, calls for paying significant attention to the nature of religious discourse, and he does pay closer attention to it than Dawkins does, I argue that both he and Dawkins are selective in their interpretations of religious discourse. However, the ultimate aim in bringing Hartshorne and Dawkins into discussion is not simply to adjudicate between them. Rather, the paper demonstrates that neither thinker does justice to the nature of religious discourse, and that a third alternative which goes beyond the empirical and metaphysical approaches to religion is required. This third approach might be described as an active, or pragmatic, approach.

In other words, this is a useless source.

I have already done so. The view of God a s a malevolent being is one which nobody shares, whether they are Christian, Jewish or Muslim. People don't want to worship a cruel God.

That's nice. We aren't arguing whether people worship such a God, we are arguing whether such a God could be considered malevolent. You've basically admitted that you have no idea what the topic is nor what is being argued.

Therefore this threads caricature of God as such relies on a literalist interpretation of scripture that goes beyond even the fundamentalist dispensationalists, who generally agree that God is fully revealed in Christ, not the Old Testament (therefore the New Testament superceded the Old), even if this Christ is exceedingly war like (just read the Left Behind books and you'll see what I mean).

Wrong. It doesn't rely on a literalist interpretation. There is no way you can just spin off the slaughter of millions of people as representing something benevolent. You can claim it's an allegory for something, but the problem is that there's nothing allegorical that would actually be both benevolent and match up with the Bible.

An intellectually honest response to Christianity, on the other hand, would have taken the time to learn what Christians actually think about God, rather than making up their minds for them and attacking an entirely straw man God of the atheist's own creation.

Thank you for showing me you do not know what a straw man is.

All this does not mean I am anti-atheist. I just wish they would take the time to learn about my religion first before attacking it. Then we might actually have an intelligible conversation.

I wish you would stop attacking arguments that haven't been made by us and stop spamming links without actually formulating your own argument.

[Buddha Punk Robot Monks]

If you don't consider ProQuest reputable, then there is no help for you.

You do realize that your source states you are wrong, right?

I advance the thesis that many of the indictments of the New Atheists are valid but that these authors cannot be accused of philosophical and theological illiteracy. Rather, their work seis consistent with, and legitimated by, the dominant views and methods of contemporary Anglo-American philosophy of religion.

In other words, your claim that atheists simply don't understand Christianity or they are philosophically deficient is factually incorrect.

A more nuanced reading would notice that the thesis indicts philosophy of religion in general, arguing that the New Atheists share these philosophical misconceptions with philosophers of religion:

Indeed, these confused assumptions are constitutive of one of the dominant approaches to the study of religion in contemporary philosophy. It is my claim that both the New Atheists and their counterparts in philosophy of religion fail to recognize, respect, and do justice to the variety and complexity of religious phenomena. Through a close investigation of the conceptual confusions of the New Atheists and their relationship to contemporary philosophy of religion, I hope to clear a few persistent conceptual tangles and point to a more intellectually rigorous approach to understanding religion. 3

Here's some more scholarly sources:
http://people.nnu.edu/ktimpe/research/new_atheists.pdf

Let me guess: you didn't read any of this one, did you?

Indeed I did. Conclusion:

The New Atheists have certainly had an impact on public discussions of religious belief iN the United States and Great Britian. But once their claims about the nature of religious belief are examined more closely, one sees that their veracity sheds more heat than light on the question of the nature of religious belief. For all their rhetoric and animus, they actually provide little in the way of substantive criticism of the nature of religious belief.

http://organicism.org/ojs/index.php/ajp ... le/view/80

Abstract of that last one:

In other words, this is a useless source.

How? He argues for the selectivity in Dawkins interpretation of religious discourse and also that he fundamentally misunderstands religion and sees it as an interpretive alternative to science, which it is not.

I have already done so. The view of God a s a malevolent being is one which nobody shares, whether they are Christian, Jewish or Muslim. People don't want to worship a cruel God.

That's nice. We aren't arguing whether people worship such a God, we are arguing whether such a God could be considered malevolent. You've basically admitted that you have no idea what the topic is nor what is being argued.

No because if you fail to understand the nuances of how religious people think about God, and/or don't represent such a God accurately, including all points of philosophical and theological data, then you cannot reasonably make an argument for such a God's malevolence. It's classical example of coming to an argument with an agenda and seeing what your want and only using those specific data points which support your argument. If more research was done into Christian philosophy and theology you will see that Christianity has already answered this question years ago and, indeed, continues to do so (especially with the historical-critical method). And yet none of this research has been represented in this thread.

You are free to make bad arguments based on caricatures of a God that does not exist. This, however, is not good reasoning.

Therefore this threads caricature of God as such relies on a literalist interpretation of scripture that goes beyond even the fundamentalist dispensationalists, who generally agree that God is fully revealed in Christ, not the Old Testament (therefore the New Testament superceded the Old), even if this Christ is exceedingly war like (just read the Left Behind books and you'll see what I mean).

Wrong. It doesn't rely on a literalist interpretation. There is no way you can just spin off the slaughter of millions of people as representing something benevolent. You can claim it's an allegory for something, but the problem is that there's nothing allegorical that would actually be both benevolent and match up with the Bible.

I didn't claim it was an allegory. I do claim it is a politically motivated polemic against the Canaanites by the priestly Hebrew class to discredit the right of other Canaanites to the land they lives on, and a transparent justification for wars of conquest. In fact this rhetoric is remarkably similar to what the fundamentalist Zionist in Israel are saying today who use similar arguments to discredit Palestinian rights.

So by not bothering to understand the cultural, political and historical context behind such Texts of Terrors your interpretation does indeed become quite literalist.

An intellectually honest response to Christianity, on the other hand, would have taken the time to learn what Christians actually think about God, rather than making up their minds for them and attacking an entirely straw man God of the atheist's own creation.

Thank you for showing me you do not know what a straw man is.

And representing God in a way nobody believes in is not a misrepresentation of theism?

All this does not mean I am anti-atheist. I just wish they would take the time to learn about my religion first before attacking it. Then we might actually have an intelligible conversation.

I wish you would stop attacking arguments that haven't been made by us and stop spamming links without actually formulating your own argument.

I used the links to support my arguments, if you noticed. And people here are arguing that God is malevolent. I am saying that such a view is based on bad reasoning. Reason would dictate that one takes in all the available relevant data before making a conclusion. But the only thing I see here are vacuous arguments recycled from the pages of Dawkins or Hitchens that have already been shown to be unsophisticated.