this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
515 points (93.1% liked)

Cool Guides

4676 readers
1 users here now

Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community

1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.

2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.

3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.

4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.

5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.

6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.

Community Guidelines

By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 78 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You forgot the actual Epicurean belief. God(s) exist but they don't give a fuuuuuuuuuck.

Epicurus was the first deist.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Really more an atheist.

Don't forget that not long before him Socrates was murdered by the state on the charge of impiety.

Plato in Timeaus refuses to even entertain a rejection of intelligent design "because it's impious."

By the time of Lucretius, Epicureanism is very much rejecting intelligent design but does so while acknowledging the existence of the gods, despite having effectively completely removed them from the picture.

It may have been too dangerous to outright say what was on their minds, but the Epicurean cosmology does not depend on the existence of gods at all, and you even see things like eventually Epicurus's name becoming synonymous with atheism in Judea.

He is probably best described as a closeted atheist at a time when being one openly was still too dangerous.

[–] hswolf@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

wouldn't that be more like an agnostic than an atheist?

since atheist believes that gods don't exist

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

since atheist believes that gods don't exist

This is a common misconception.

Theist is someone who believes God(s) exist(s).

An atheist is someone who does not believe God exists. They don't need to have a positive belief of nonexistence of God.

Much like how a gnostic is someone who believes there is knowledge of the topic.

And an agnostic is someone who believes either they don't have that knowledge or that the knowledge doesn't exist.

So you could be an agnostic atheist ("I don't know and I don't believe either way in the absence of knowledge") or an agnostic atheist ("I don't know but I believe anyways") or a gnostic atheist ("I know that they don't and because I know I don't believe") or a gnostic theist ("I know they do and I believe because I know").

Epicurus would have been an Agnostic atheist if we were categorizing. They ended up right about so much because they were so committed to not ruling anything out. They even propose that there might be different rules for different versions of parallel universes (they thought both time and matter were infinite so there were infinite worlds). It's entirely plausible he would have argued for both the existence and nonexistence of gods in different variations of existence given how committed they were to this notion of not ruling anything out.

But it's pretty clear from the collection of his beliefs that the notion of a god as either creator or overseer of this universe was not actively believed in outside of the lip service that essentially "yeah, sure, there's gods in between the fabric of existence, but not in it."

The Epicurean philosophy itself was very focused on the idea that the very notion of gods was making everyone sick, and that they offered their 'cure' for people to stop giving a crap about what gods might think or do.

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Your second one is a typo "I don't know but I believe" should be an agnostic thiest.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hswolf@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I see, I have no more knowledge to improve this conversation, but thanks for sharing

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 46 points 5 months ago (2 children)

"God works in mysterious ways"

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 37 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The cope that always comes across when I hear this is intesne

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago

imo every religion ever is a cope. All of those elaborate ideas about supernatural beings and alternate planes of existence to somehow cope with the fact that one day the good man, and the evil man, will both die and rot just the same.

It feels incredibly unjust for good men to die the same way evil men do, and for a lot of people that's too much to handle. We as humans have such a strong sense of "fairness" that we attempted to structure our entire society around the idea of justice for all, and so by comparison nature feels cruel and unfair, you can either learn to live with that, or tell yourself really really hard that it's not the end :) after they die the good man will be happy! and the evil man will get the punishment he deserves!

now layer that with milenia of different ideas about what qualifies you as "good" and "evil" and you've got religion.

This is my personal opinion, and honestly I don't mind nor care how the other person deals with their existential dread, as long as they aren't bigots about their way of coping.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] maculata@aussie.zone 42 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If there is a ‘god’ then they are a fucking asshole.

[–] Sharkwellington@lemmy.one 34 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

"If there is a god, he must ask me forgiveness."

-Scrawled on the walls of a Nazi concentration camp cell

[–] oxomoxo@lemmy.world 32 points 5 months ago

All religion is not about logic or reason, rather it is about identity. You can join a club for scale model trains, and you can join it for the only reason that you want to and because you enjoy it. You then identify as a member of the train club. It becomes part of your identity.

Religion is similar except it adds a dogma and doctrine that defines your entire world view. To lose this world view is to lose your identity. People would rather die than lose their identity because psychologically one’s identity is synonymous with their life.

The only way a person will lose religion is if they have decided for themself that it’s time for change. Much like an addict, it a personal identity change. You have to say to yourself, I am no longer an alcoholic or I am no longer a Mormon. There is no amount of convincing, rationality, evidence or influence that can change a person until they are ready and willing. It’s transformative and traumatic. You just have to accept those who are lost to it.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Maybe God is studying ethics, and we are his show and tell assignment.

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Or we're in a microverse powering his spaceship.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago (7 children)

To nibble further at the arguments for God: free will is absurd.

If god is all knowing and all powerful, then when he created the universe, he would know exactly what happened from the first moment until the last. Like setting up an extremely complex arrangement of dominoes.

So how could he give people free will? Maybe he created some kind of special domino that sometimes falls leftward and sometimes falls rightward, so now it has "free will". Ok, but isn't that just randomness? God's great innovation is just chance?

No, one might argue, free will isn't chance, it's more complex than that, a person makes decisions based on their moral principles, their life experience, etc. Well where did they get their principles? What circumstances created their life experience? Conditions don't appear out of nowhere. We get our DNA from somewhere. Either God controls the starting conditions and knows where they lead, or he covered his eyes and threw some dice. In either case we can say "yes, I have free will" in the sense that we do what we want, but the origins of our decisions are either predetermined or subject to chaos/chance.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] orangeboats@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

You see, shit like this is why I think some of the Eastern philosophers like Xunzi hit the mark on what "God" is: God is not a sentient being, God does not have a conscious mind like we do, God simply is.

Of course, those people didn't call this higher being the God, they called it "Heaven", but I think it's really referring to the natural flow of the world, something that is not controlled by us. Maybe the closest equivalent to this concept in the non-Eastern world is "Luck" -- people rarely assign "being lucky" to the actions of <insert deity here>, it simply happens by the flow of this world, it is not the action of an all-knowing, all-powerful deity. But like I said, it's merely the closest approximation of the Heaven concept I can think of.

The side effect coming out of this revelation is that, you can't blame the Heaven for your own misfortunes. The Heaven is not a sentient being after all!

[–] match@pawb.social 15 points 5 months ago (3 children)

This is always bizarre because "evil exists" is taken as a given and I don't think it does. Evil is just a judgment call made by humans about the intentional and uncoerced actions of other humans; nothing less volitional than that can be argued as evil.

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago (4 children)

You can simply replace evil with suffering, or ig a christian context might say sin? The point is the paradox is a structure, if any choice of word makes it work, then it works.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This guide lacks the branch where people's sense of good and evil differs from the God's one.

[–] miridius@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

So wait the argument is that yes, by human definition, God is evil, but that he thinks all the atrocities in the world are totally awesome? That doesn't make him less evil

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Promethiel@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (6 children)

The problem my agnostic ass meets with good ol' Epi is the disingenuousness inherent in assuming "Godly" rationale to "human logic" semantics. My dude, people can't agree on human meaning and I'm supposed to make assumptions on God?

Why test if It knows the result of the test?

Geez Epic Manster, I know they didn't have spring mattresses in your day but the mattress factory also knows the result my mattress should have gotten at testing but tested it anyways...because the testing provides the necessary shape.

I still maintain my agnosticism and keep my two extremes whenever I don't feel like just being sure it's all bullshit anyways:

If God exists, it doesn't care for our suffering for reasons wholly beyond us (like a greater suffering of its own and why not, it's shit all the way down).

God exists, cares, is a bit sad, but we're all fucking mattresses where the cosmos is gonna poke, prod, and simulate fucking atop of us until we reach the appropriate factory required settings.

I already had coffee tho, so the middle atheist ground is in effect; none of it real, nothing matters except trying to not be total cockwaffles so everyone else can enjoy their nihilism too.

[–] shikitohno@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago

The problem my agnostic ass meets with good ol’ Epi is the disingenuousness inherent in assuming “Godly” rationale to “human logic” semantics. My dude, people can’t agree on human meaning and I’m supposed to make assumptions on God?

I think the idea here is that this deity being perfect would give some sort of absolute underpinning to the universe, having been designed by an intelligent mind. If it's made in this systemic way, even if we don't currently comprehend it properly, given enough time, we should be able to figure out at least some of the rules, providing insight into the nature of things and the mind of the universe's creator.

I know they didn’t have spring mattresses in your day but the mattress factory also knows the result my mattress should have gotten at testing but tested it anyways…because the testing provides the necessary shape.

The mattress factory isn't claiming their process is infallible, though, and they have QC exactly because they admit this and don't want a factory defect to get out to customers. That's a big difference from the omnipotent, omniscient deity being spoken of in the paradox here.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 5 months ago

The bad execution of the flow chart was bothering me enough to create a cleaner version.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago (17 children)

Is there actually "free will" without evil?

[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago (6 children)

why not? you can choose to eat a banana or an apple, both perfectly non evil

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] lemmydripzdotz456@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (5 children)

The solution I have heard before that I thought was the most interesting would add another arrow to the "Then why didn't he?" box at the bottom:

Because he wants his creation to be more like him.

He's just a lonely guy. He made the angels but they're so boring and predictable. They all kowtow to him and have no capacity for evil (except for that one time). Humans have the capacity for both good and evil, they don't constantly feel his presence, and they're so much more interesting! They make choices that are neither directly in support of or opposition to himself. Most of the time, their decisions have nothing to do with him at all!

Humans have the capacity to be more like God than any of his other creations.

[–] Katrisia@lemm.ee 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

That would fall under the "then God is not good/not all loving". You described it as if it were a privilege, but the capacity of evil causes indescribable suffering to us and to innocent beings such as small children and animals. If God lets all of this happen just because he wants some replicas of himself or because he thinks it is such a gift to be like him despite it, he's an egotistical god.

Also, if he gets bored of pure goodness, blissfulness, and perfection, then it was never pure goodness, blissfulness, and perfection for him. Those things, by definition, provide eternal satisfaction. So he either never created that (evil branch again) or he cannot achieve those states even if we wanted to. If he cannot achieve those states even if he wanted to, if he lacks enjoyment and entertainment and has to spice his creation from time to time, then he's not all powerful.

Also, many people argue the necessity of evil as a requisite for freedom. If God needs to allow evil so we can be free, then he's bound to that rule (and/or others): not all powerful.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›