God is evil

[Gary Childress]

God is Evil.
Love is Hate
Truth is Falsehood.
Peace is War.
Health is Sickness.
Good is Evil.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Sanity is Insanity.


You don't have to blame God, Gary. Only moral relativists. Some of them even go to church and call themselves Christians.

In that case, God is not really evil.

Step 1 out of the nihilist hell-hole.

Yes. I see that.

[Skepdick]

In that case, God is not really evil.

Step 1 out of the nihilist hell-hole.

Yes. I see that.

Good! Now find the line and the light that the relativists stole from you.

[Gary Childress]

Gary von pussicus finds himself stuck in a nihilist black hell hole where he has decided to take up his new residence. Hopes the neighbors are friendly and will allow him to drop his shorts when he takes a shit.

[Skepdick]

Gary von pussicus finds himself stuck in a nihilist black hell hole where he has decided to take up his new residence. Hopes the neighbors are friendly and will allow him to drop his shorts when he takes a shit.

Don't shit on the road, Garry! Use the toilet.

Nobody's cleaning up after you.

[Gary Childress]

Gary von pussicus finds himself stuck in a nihilist black hell hole where he has decided to take up his new residence. Hopes the neighbors are friendly and will allow him to drop his shorts when he takes a shit.

Don't shit on the road, Garry! Use the toilet.

Nobody's cleaning up after you.

Can you point me to the nearest toilet I can take a shit on?

[Skepdick]

Gary von pussicus finds himself stuck in a nihilist black hell hole where he has decided to take up his new residence. Hopes the neighbors are friendly and will allow him to drop his shorts when he takes a shit.

Don't shit on the road, Garry! Use the toilet.

Nobody's cleaning up after you.

Can you point me to the nearest toilet I can take a shit on?

Just shit in your pants then. Either way you have to clean it up.

[Gary Childress]

Don't shit on the road, Garry! Use the toilet.

Nobody's cleaning up after you.

Can you point me to the nearest toilet I can take a shit on?

Just shit in your pants then. Either way you have to clean it up.

Roger that. I will proceed on my journey mapping out the planet Earth for NASA.

[promethean75]

For the same reasons that God can't be good, he can't be evil either, Gary. Just replace 'good' with 'evil' and run this same argument. It's the euthyphro dilemma for dummies again (courtesy of your homegirl Rosa Lichtenstein):

It seem theists have a clear choice to make, either:

(1) ‘God’ decides what is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ based on an ‘objective standard’ that is independent of ‘him’. On this account, morality is ‘objective’ but ‘god’ had no part in establishing it; ‘he’ just passes the message along to us.

Or:

(2) Whatever ‘god’ says is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ just because ‘he’ says it is. There is no independent standard by means of which what ‘he’ says may be judged correct or incorrect, ‘good’ or ‘bad’. In that case, morality isn’t ‘objective’, it is based on the ‘subjective’ opinion of ‘god’.

If (2) is the case, then there is no such thing as “absolutely evil/bad/wrong” other than ‘god’ says so. “Wrong” and “evil” therefore now merely mean ‘god disapproves’ of whatever it is.

However, as we have seen from the Bible (especially the Old Testament), ‘he’ changes ‘his’ mind all the time concerning what ‘he’ approves or disapproves, what ‘he’ says is ‘good’ or what ‘he’ deems ‘bad’. In that case, there is no ‘absolute wrong’; there can’t be if ‘god’ changes ‘his’ mind all the time (and ‘he’ — or even ‘she’, in some cases — does so between different religions/sects/denominations). It isn’t possible to change one’s mind over something that is an ‘absolute’ — or claim it is ‘objective’ if so many religions disagree, even within and between ‘the great monotheist’ faiths, Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Just try getting a Quaker to agree with a Roman Catholic over the concept of a ‘Just War’, or even the use of condoms!

As soon as you admit ‘god’ can and does change ‘his’ mind, you concede that whatever it was wasn’t ‘absolute’, after all.

Moreover, (given option (2)), anyone praising ‘god’ and calling ‘him’ “good” is merely saying ‘he’ simply does what ‘he’ approved of (at that time), since there is no independent standard by means of which anyone can judge ‘him’ to be ‘good’.

On the other hand, if (1) is the case, then there is an independent standard — which ‘god’ had no hand in establishing —, that no one can cancel, alter or modify, and which tells us what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Of course, that means we didn’t need ‘god’ to tell us, after all.

Hence, with respect to morality, if theists choose option (2) they can kiss ‘goodbye!’ to ‘absolute morality’ along with any right they currently think they have to praise ‘god’; but if they choose (1), they can wave a fond ‘farewell!’ to any idea that ’god’ is the source of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.

Theists now have no right to point their grubby fingers at us atheists (at least with respect to morality). They can’t account for it without undermining the ‘goodness of god’ or torpedoing ‘absolute morality’, itself. On the other hand, once they acknowledge there are ‘moral absolutes’ (that even ‘god’ has to observe), they in effect agree with us atheists that we don’t need ‘god’ to tell us ‘right’ from ‘wrong’, to begin with.

I hasten to add that I reject both ways of characterising ‘the source of morality’; I am merely alerting theists to what is in effect a fatal dilemma for them to chew on (it is in fact one that Plato formulated over two thousand years ago, and for which there is no effective reply (if you view ethics and morality this way)).