Whence Then is Evil?
Mohammad Gill July 4, 2007
#33 Posted by SR on July 4, 2007 1:20:12 pm
Alas ... what a shaame.
Right at this moment, this guy could have been enjoying an endless orgy with as many as 70 beautiful women in the gardens of paradise. Alas he choose to escape. What a bad deal! So much for the martyrdom shit ....
This guy should be hanged by his balls.
More news
and
still more
Right at this moment, this guy could have been enjoying an endless orgy with as many as 70 beautiful women in the gardens of paradise. Alas he choose to escape. What a bad deal! So much for the martyrdom shit ....
This guy should be hanged by his balls.
More news
and
still more
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#34 Posted by parthaab on July 4, 2007 2:53:02 pm
Brainwashing has taken a new meaning with doctors turning religious fanatics. Not just youngsters, but educated people are now willing to be brainwashed and `educated` in nonsense and superstition called religion.
It is high time we recognised the need to ban religion. If ever there was a blaring call to ban religion - muslim, jew, sikh, christian or Hindu, this is it!
Religious brainwashing of youngsters should be made a punishable offence with immediate effect.
http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20070703&fname=raman&sid=2
#35 Posted by dost_mittar on July 4, 2007 4:02:54 pm
Gill Saheb:
You have posed the perennial question which has bothered most of us at one time or another. However, I think that it is less of a problem for Indic religions/philosophers. By introducing the concept of `karma`, they have taken the responsibility out of God`s hands and put it squarely into the hands of humans. We may not see justice in this world, the argument goes, but we do see it in the long run - i.e., longer than one life-span.
There are two problems with this approach, though. A basic concept of just system is that justice should not only be delivered but it also should be seen to be delivered. Since, none of us remembers what we did or did not do in the presumed previous birth or births, justice cannot be seen to be delivered.
A more mundane problem with this approach is that it works against establishing an egalitarian society. People become too fatalistic and accept their station in life as a consequence of their deeds in a previous birth instead of trying to change it.
You have posed the perennial question which has bothered most of us at one time or another. However, I think that it is less of a problem for Indic religions/philosophers. By introducing the concept of `karma`, they have taken the responsibility out of God`s hands and put it squarely into the hands of humans. We may not see justice in this world, the argument goes, but we do see it in the long run - i.e., longer than one life-span.
There are two problems with this approach, though. A basic concept of just system is that justice should not only be delivered but it also should be seen to be delivered. Since, none of us remembers what we did or did not do in the presumed previous birth or births, justice cannot be seen to be delivered.
A more mundane problem with this approach is that it works against establishing an egalitarian society. People become too fatalistic and accept their station in life as a consequence of their deeds in a previous birth instead of trying to change it.
#36 Posted by Ajeet on July 4, 2007 4:09:18 pm
`The leader of a radical mosque besieged by Pakistani security forces in Islamabad has been caught trying to escape wearing a woman`s burqa. Security forces seized Maulana Abdul Aziz as he tried to leave the Red Mosque amid a crowd of women`.
This guy has given the best possible reason to ban the use of tent burqa in non islamic societies.
This guy has given the best possible reason to ban the use of tent burqa in non islamic societies.
#37 Posted by hamidm2 on July 4, 2007 4:45:02 pm
Re: # 35
dost sahib,
........ question for you ..... i hang out with a lot of hindoo guys - mostly in their forties - and i am amazed by the fact that they seem to know absolutely nothing about their religion ....... is that true or are they just putting me on ? .... any muslim, worth his salt, knows at least the fundamentals of islam and can can recite at least half a dozen ayahs from the koran - what is up with you guys ?........... am i hanging out with fake hindoos or are they just a bunch of drunkards ?
dost sahib,
........ question for you ..... i hang out with a lot of hindoo guys - mostly in their forties - and i am amazed by the fact that they seem to know absolutely nothing about their religion ....... is that true or are they just putting me on ? .... any muslim, worth his salt, knows at least the fundamentals of islam and can can recite at least half a dozen ayahs from the koran - what is up with you guys ?........... am i hanging out with fake hindoos or are they just a bunch of drunkards ?
#38 Posted by klpd on July 4, 2007 5:43:25 pm
Re: # 37
hamidm2 - you said you quit. Alas. You are just an asshole who can`t let lysol kill you. Happy swimming.
hamidm2 - you said you quit. Alas. You are just an asshole who can`t let lysol kill you. Happy swimming.
#39 Posted by dost_mittar on July 4, 2007 6:19:17 pm
hamidm:
No, they are not fake. For most Hindus, it is just a matter of rituals - birth, marriage, death, etc. and going to the poojas and havans organized by friends and relatives to celebrate/observe special occasions, such as graduations, anniversaries, etc. I can bet that a majority of chowk Hindus, including some of the more belligerent ones, won`t be able to even name the four vedas, let alone tell what they are about. But things are changing. There is a me-too attitude among Hindus and more religiousity, thus religious camps, Chinmaya camps, jagraatas (all night singing) are proliferating. One can only hope that this is a passing phase.
But the concept of `karma` and reincarnation is firmly ingrained. I won`t be surprised if even some of your elderly Muslim relatives used expressions like `karmaaN da phal` without realising its Hindu connotations.
No, they are not fake. For most Hindus, it is just a matter of rituals - birth, marriage, death, etc. and going to the poojas and havans organized by friends and relatives to celebrate/observe special occasions, such as graduations, anniversaries, etc. I can bet that a majority of chowk Hindus, including some of the more belligerent ones, won`t be able to even name the four vedas, let alone tell what they are about. But things are changing. There is a me-too attitude among Hindus and more religiousity, thus religious camps, Chinmaya camps, jagraatas (all night singing) are proliferating. One can only hope that this is a passing phase.
But the concept of `karma` and reincarnation is firmly ingrained. I won`t be surprised if even some of your elderly Muslim relatives used expressions like `karmaaN da phal` without realising its Hindu connotations.
#40 Posted by burpinder on July 4, 2007 6:53:00 pm
Let us imagine a child and a grown-up man in Heaven who both died in the True Faith, but the grown-up has a higher place than the child. And the child will ask God, “Why did you give that man a higher place?” And God will answer, “He has done many good works.” Then the child will say, “Why did you let me die so soon so that I was prevented from doing good.” God will answer, “I knew that you would grow up a sinner, therefore it was better that you should die as a child.” Then a cry goes up from the damned in the depths of Hell, “Why, O Lord, did you not let us die before we became sinners?”
Dude that`s just depressing :)))
Why don`t you write on matters of science which you are decidedly more comfortable with? This article veers from boring to well....more boring. It sounds like the work of some first year philosophy major.
Dude that`s just depressing :)))
Why don`t you write on matters of science which you are decidedly more comfortable with? This article veers from boring to well....more boring. It sounds like the work of some first year philosophy major.
#41 Posted by klpd on July 4, 2007 7:06:42 pm
Re: # 40
you actually read these frikkin` ``articles``? I bet most ``readers`` just go to the interacts.
you actually read these frikkin` ``articles``? I bet most ``readers`` just go to the interacts.
#42 Posted by KaalChakra on July 4, 2007 8:42:08 pm
lekin
A little bit of spinoza that I read once seemed pretty much indistinguishable from a lot of common-place Indian beliefs.
Gill sahib, just to broaden your perspective, not to ``find the truth,`` you should learn how Indians think of such things.
How can you do that? I haven`t the least idea. No one can or wants to explain, and books on ``Indian philosophy`` won`t help. Most of us just learn the darn things at home from our parents.
I don`t know if that is the right or any better approach, or not, but it will force a complete re-think. But again, to get it in any way, you will have to totally step out of Islam for a while at least, it being a kind of polar opposite.
A little bit of spinoza that I read once seemed pretty much indistinguishable from a lot of common-place Indian beliefs.
Gill sahib, just to broaden your perspective, not to ``find the truth,`` you should learn how Indians think of such things.
How can you do that? I haven`t the least idea. No one can or wants to explain, and books on ``Indian philosophy`` won`t help. Most of us just learn the darn things at home from our parents.
I don`t know if that is the right or any better approach, or not, but it will force a complete re-think. But again, to get it in any way, you will have to totally step out of Islam for a while at least, it being a kind of polar opposite.
#43 Posted by masadi on July 4, 2007 11:05:42 pm
``free``thinker writes <<< In the mean time, I share my thoughts with the theists hoping they`ll see the light of the day. >>>
Man spare us this nonsense, you censor alternative points of view (as you have done with several of my articles as well as interacts) and then claim to be in search of ``truth`` which you will ``share`` with others. With a blind mentality like yours you wouldn`t see truth if it hit you in the face, all you can do is reproduce quotations and other people`s thoughts like a damn tape recorder. In order to get to the truth you need a basic minimum of critical thinking skills, and your skills in that department are less than a five year olds. Echo is correct, Allah has sealed your heart because of the dishonesty of your intellect, there is little to no hope that truth can now affect a dimwit like you. Go ahead censor this as well, and in doing so prove my point.
Man spare us this nonsense, you censor alternative points of view (as you have done with several of my articles as well as interacts) and then claim to be in search of ``truth`` which you will ``share`` with others. With a blind mentality like yours you wouldn`t see truth if it hit you in the face, all you can do is reproduce quotations and other people`s thoughts like a damn tape recorder. In order to get to the truth you need a basic minimum of critical thinking skills, and your skills in that department are less than a five year olds. Echo is correct, Allah has sealed your heart because of the dishonesty of your intellect, there is little to no hope that truth can now affect a dimwit like you. Go ahead censor this as well, and in doing so prove my point.
#44 Posted by masadi on July 4, 2007 11:48:21 pm
Gill quoting Hitchens <<< Is He willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent?
Is He able but not willing? Then is He malevolent?
Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil? >>>
You don`t need to be an Einstein to conclude that the above is based on the ``thinkers`` reductionism, there can be alternative choices, like
He is able and willing but restrains himself till a set time
Why you ask: In order to remain consistent with his nature that of a Just God, after he has determined a purpose for creating the world, not as end by itself but a pathway to the end where evil will then (after a set time) not exist. And why will evil not exist, because ``evil`` is not an attribute of `creation` but going contrary to your nature i.e. not submitting to God; it is therefore relative based on specific criteria...
Quran 16.61] And if Allah had destroyed people for their evil, He would not leave on the earth a single creature, but He respites them till an appointed time; so when their time will come they shall not be able to delay (it) an hour nor can they bring (it) on (before its time).
Why such a long time you ask? ``Longness`` is also relative.
Quran 30.55] And at the time when the hour shall come, the guilty shall swear (that) they did not tarry but an hour; thus are they get misguided.
Think Gill and recognize the glory of the Quran
Is He able but not willing? Then is He malevolent?
Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil? >>>
You don`t need to be an Einstein to conclude that the above is based on the ``thinkers`` reductionism, there can be alternative choices, like
He is able and willing but restrains himself till a set time
Why you ask: In order to remain consistent with his nature that of a Just God, after he has determined a purpose for creating the world, not as end by itself but a pathway to the end where evil will then (after a set time) not exist. And why will evil not exist, because ``evil`` is not an attribute of `creation` but going contrary to your nature i.e. not submitting to God; it is therefore relative based on specific criteria...
Quran 16.61] And if Allah had destroyed people for their evil, He would not leave on the earth a single creature, but He respites them till an appointed time; so when their time will come they shall not be able to delay (it) an hour nor can they bring (it) on (before its time).
Why such a long time you ask? ``Longness`` is also relative.
Quran 30.55] And at the time when the hour shall come, the guilty shall swear (that) they did not tarry but an hour; thus are they get misguided.
Think Gill and recognize the glory of the Quran
#45 Posted by masadi on July 5, 2007 12:03:18 am
burpinder writes about Gill <<< It sounds like the work of some first year philosophy major. >>>
Actually it is more like a high-school level essay, my first year students, some of them, those that know how to read and write that is, have come up with much superior work than this pseudo-plagiarized, tape-recorder-esque piece. The guy is spending a meaningless existence in the USA, like most folk over there, working day and night for a paycheck or if retired frequenting restaurants and what not. It is meaninglessness multiplied by meaninglessness and so he sits on his computer and composes this pathetic piece, while trying to censor the writings of others.... and then he has the audacity to claim that this kind of moronic existence is what humanity is all about. If I were Mr.T, I’d say, “I pity the fool”.
Actually it is more like a high-school level essay, my first year students, some of them, those that know how to read and write that is, have come up with much superior work than this pseudo-plagiarized, tape-recorder-esque piece. The guy is spending a meaningless existence in the USA, like most folk over there, working day and night for a paycheck or if retired frequenting restaurants and what not. It is meaninglessness multiplied by meaninglessness and so he sits on his computer and composes this pathetic piece, while trying to censor the writings of others.... and then he has the audacity to claim that this kind of moronic existence is what humanity is all about. If I were Mr.T, I’d say, “I pity the fool”.
#46 Posted by masadi on July 5, 2007 12:17:28 am
ballukhan writes <<< It is amazing to see superstition of a deity called god running the lives of millions of human beings. >>>
What is amazing to see is that this BS khan was claiming to be an Indian Muslim, and pontificating on God and theology and how he believes in it, when people here knew he was just faking it. Now he comes out in the open, the poor idiot could not restrain himself. God has nothing to do with running the lives of millions, he has everything to do with giving them life, those who have everything to do with designing institutions that govern the life/death and determine the personality of people in the millions,. i.e. the elite are absolved of all evil by a-holes like bs khan and tahmed, while assigning the blame to God. The ``higher superstition`` does not involve God, it involves the mythology and symbolism of advanced capitalism that enslaves the many to benefit the very few...
What is amazing to see is that this BS khan was claiming to be an Indian Muslim, and pontificating on God and theology and how he believes in it, when people here knew he was just faking it. Now he comes out in the open, the poor idiot could not restrain himself. God has nothing to do with running the lives of millions, he has everything to do with giving them life, those who have everything to do with designing institutions that govern the life/death and determine the personality of people in the millions,. i.e. the elite are absolved of all evil by a-holes like bs khan and tahmed, while assigning the blame to God. The ``higher superstition`` does not involve God, it involves the mythology and symbolism of advanced capitalism that enslaves the many to benefit the very few...
#47 Posted by anil on July 5, 2007 12:20:17 am
Re: # 37
Hamidm sahib:
Could it be that Hinduism is not a religion in the sense you were brought up to believe a religion. Its followers are not required to even remember the names of four vedas, simply saying to yourself that ``I am a Hindu`` is its Kalima (??), after that you are free to choose.
Hamidm sahib:
Could it be that Hinduism is not a religion in the sense you were brought up to believe a religion. Its followers are not required to even remember the names of four vedas, simply saying to yourself that ``I am a Hindu`` is its Kalima (??), after that you are free to choose.
#48 Posted by PM on July 5, 2007 1:41:14 am
philospher, gill saheb,
Phlioo, you post #2 is excellent in explaining the phenomenological nature of belief. I wonder if this debate is a non-starter for Muslims in the first place because, to the best of my understanding, God is never said to be Omnipotent and Omniscient. (Someone correct me if I`m wrong.)
The paradox that Gill cites is an almost valid debunking of the Christian idea of God, (or more correctly, SOME Christians` idea) which, far from having ``merely`` phenomenological value and pointing to ``something intuitive deep withing man``, has a supposedly rational, logical basis.
Quite apart from the issue that the untestability of the statements regarding God`s essential, ``omni``, attributes renders these statements unsicentific, it may still be possible to apply a logical positivist approach to any such claims or statements coming together, and possibly demonstrate their collective tenability or otherwise.
If put it simply, Gill`s treatment of the God-question is fair game as long as God is being sold with rational arguments. But let`s look at the arguments, none of which, of course, are original.
Acutally, let`s just look at the last of them, against Free Will, with which I take issue. This is what Gill writes:
``Another escape route from such a paradoxical fix that is provided to omnipotent and omniscient God is that of Free Will. The argument goes that God created man with a free will – he has a choice of doing good or doing evil. Thus God created a potential for evil in the form of free will and man is the actual committer of evil acts. In this way, God has a
basis for rewarding the good with eternal bliss in the Paradise and burning the evildoers in the eternal fires of Hell. It is implicit in this argument that God created evil so that He could sadistically burn the evildoers. No matter, how you cut it, if God is indeed omnipotent, He is also responsible for creating evil directly or indirectly by endowing the human beings with free will.``
I find this line of arguement quite ridiculous. God seems to be indicted for evil-creation even if the evil is an outcome of His granting Free Will to man. The absurdity is readily apparent when you consider that,
i) Free Will automatically-- logically if you might-- implies the possibility or existence of evil, and,
ii) In the absence of Free Will, the entire concept of evil becomes nonsense (in the philosphical as well as common sense usage of the word.)
To better grasp this absurdity, consider having free will without the existence of evil. Now THAT`s a paradox if there ever was one. And that`s also the flaw in Gill`s argument on Free Will. The following statement simply does not stand up to logical scrutiny:
``Thus God created a potential for evil in the form of free will and man is the actual committer of evil acts.``
Apart from the fact that, as Philo said, any sophomore could point out that the creation of a potential for something isn`t the same as the creation of that thing itself, in the context of free will, evil is as necessary, as coulours are to a pallette. Those that would like Free Will without the possibility of evil want to eat their cake (of ``innocence``, or amorality) and have it too!
The statement following the one last quoted is logically even weaker:
``In this way, God has a basis for rewarding the good with eternal bliss in Paradise and burning the evildoers in the eternal fires of Hell. It is implicit in this argument that God created evil so that He could sadistically burn the evildoers.``
Omigod!! Could Gill sahib be any more absurd?!? Never mind that the question of consequences is extraneous to the debate at hand, which is whether the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent and All-Good being is compatible with the existence of evil (which is a given)-- no, now Gill sahib is suggesting that:
i) Free Will itself was an evil plan hatched by God to ``exact`` reward and punishment on its agents, (Again, I suppose Gill sahib would like CHOICE without RESPONSIBILITY) and,
ii) God`s own evilness is sufficiently demonstrated in his willingness to consign evil-doers to eternal damnation.
Whether or not one agrees with the last contention (personally, I would agree, except that I`m agnostic, both on the question of God and of Free Will), the fact is that that last argument is NOT a logical argument against the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent and All-Good God. It rests on the acceptance of the proposition that punishment for evil-doing is also a form of evil itself.
Now, that is only as `true` as one feels it to be. But whatever one feels about it, it`s not open to logical scrutiny, and using it to argue God`s evilness, or God`s impossibility, is just not on.
Phlioo, you post #2 is excellent in explaining the phenomenological nature of belief. I wonder if this debate is a non-starter for Muslims in the first place because, to the best of my understanding, God is never said to be Omnipotent and Omniscient. (Someone correct me if I`m wrong.)
The paradox that Gill cites is an almost valid debunking of the Christian idea of God, (or more correctly, SOME Christians` idea) which, far from having ``merely`` phenomenological value and pointing to ``something intuitive deep withing man``, has a supposedly rational, logical basis.
Quite apart from the issue that the untestability of the statements regarding God`s essential, ``omni``, attributes renders these statements unsicentific, it may still be possible to apply a logical positivist approach to any such claims or statements coming together, and possibly demonstrate their collective tenability or otherwise.
If put it simply, Gill`s treatment of the God-question is fair game as long as God is being sold with rational arguments. But let`s look at the arguments, none of which, of course, are original.
Acutally, let`s just look at the last of them, against Free Will, with which I take issue. This is what Gill writes:
``Another escape route from such a paradoxical fix that is provided to omnipotent and omniscient God is that of Free Will. The argument goes that God created man with a free will – he has a choice of doing good or doing evil. Thus God created a potential for evil in the form of free will and man is the actual committer of evil acts. In this way, God has a
basis for rewarding the good with eternal bliss in the Paradise and burning the evildoers in the eternal fires of Hell. It is implicit in this argument that God created evil so that He could sadistically burn the evildoers. No matter, how you cut it, if God is indeed omnipotent, He is also responsible for creating evil directly or indirectly by endowing the human beings with free will.``
I find this line of arguement quite ridiculous. God seems to be indicted for evil-creation even if the evil is an outcome of His granting Free Will to man. The absurdity is readily apparent when you consider that,
i) Free Will automatically-- logically if you might-- implies the possibility or existence of evil, and,
ii) In the absence of Free Will, the entire concept of evil becomes nonsense (in the philosphical as well as common sense usage of the word.)
To better grasp this absurdity, consider having free will without the existence of evil. Now THAT`s a paradox if there ever was one. And that`s also the flaw in Gill`s argument on Free Will. The following statement simply does not stand up to logical scrutiny:
``Thus God created a potential for evil in the form of free will and man is the actual committer of evil acts.``
Apart from the fact that, as Philo said, any sophomore could point out that the creation of a potential for something isn`t the same as the creation of that thing itself, in the context of free will, evil is as necessary, as coulours are to a pallette. Those that would like Free Will without the possibility of evil want to eat their cake (of ``innocence``, or amorality) and have it too!
The statement following the one last quoted is logically even weaker:
``In this way, God has a basis for rewarding the good with eternal bliss in Paradise and burning the evildoers in the eternal fires of Hell. It is implicit in this argument that God created evil so that He could sadistically burn the evildoers.``
Omigod!! Could Gill sahib be any more absurd?!? Never mind that the question of consequences is extraneous to the debate at hand, which is whether the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent and All-Good being is compatible with the existence of evil (which is a given)-- no, now Gill sahib is suggesting that:
i) Free Will itself was an evil plan hatched by God to ``exact`` reward and punishment on its agents, (Again, I suppose Gill sahib would like CHOICE without RESPONSIBILITY) and,
ii) God`s own evilness is sufficiently demonstrated in his willingness to consign evil-doers to eternal damnation.
Whether or not one agrees with the last contention (personally, I would agree, except that I`m agnostic, both on the question of God and of Free Will), the fact is that that last argument is NOT a logical argument against the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent and All-Good God. It rests on the acceptance of the proposition that punishment for evil-doing is also a form of evil itself.
Now, that is only as `true` as one feels it to be. But whatever one feels about it, it`s not open to logical scrutiny, and using it to argue God`s evilness, or God`s impossibility, is just not on.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- akcheema: Re: # 58 Good post... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- hamidm2: Re: # 57 bj mian, ....... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- BJ2: Re: # 13 Harish, I... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- BJ2: Re: # 48 [... but... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- pinku: Re #56 Posted by... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- pinku: #55 Posted by mohar11... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- ajeya: #43 Posted by sharmeenqazi1... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- mohar11: I mean - this... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
