The same reason we teach them anything else. 
I canât believe you havenât noticed, in your experience, that not everybody rises to the level of âcritical thinkerâ.
the varieties of Buddhism within Buddhism are almost separate systems/schools of thought. Not all of them share those beliefs, and even less do so sincerely. The one commonality is Kamma, which itself varies in importance and sincerety of belief between the various subsets of Buddhism. One cannot talk about âbuddhismâ - one must talk about region specific or historically specific trends of Buddhism.
Iâve been away and missed a lot. Just a quick note. Uccisore, youâve shown some good thoughts on this page. Thank you for that. 
Connections
Gee, lots of props to the Uccisore lately. I think Iâm getting my Shpadoinkal back.
Hello Uccisore:
â First, a minor conflict on point 2: If this argument means to refute Christianity, and not just generic theism, it has to take into account that humans and God are not the only posited free-will having agents. Thereâs Satan, angels, demons, and so on to consider.
O- Job was afflicted by Satan, but only after God had granted Satan this freedom. The Freewill of Satan is naught before the Will of God.
â That said, Iâm prepared to agree that at least some of the evil we see in the world is not caused directly by some intelligent, non-God agent.
O- That would render Godâs omnipotence as questionable. Omni-potence, means that there can be no other potency: He has all the potency.
â I think the main conflict here is on point 3. Thereâs several assumptions at work here.
3A) All natural Evil can be prevented by an Omnipotent Being.
O- That is derived from the use of the words âomniâ and âpotentâ. An omnipotent being cannot, by this definition, lack the potency to prevent all natural evil. In the Christian God, Heaven would be an impossibility if God could not eliminate all evil there.
â If this unarguable to you, consider that weâre not just talking about natural evil in itself, weâre talking about anything that free-will possessing mortals would consider to be natural evil.
O- A ânatural evilâ is a condition brought about which causes suffering to at least one subject, which is not the direct effect of the freewill of another subject. I may get diabetes from my mother, but not directly from the will of my mother. She cannot decide whether I get diabetes or not. This is given or negated by the interactions of nature.
â The mere fact that humans need to eat and sleep, canât fly, and arenât immortal could all be considered examples of natural evil (especially in a world wherein some of the more severe examples we see donât exist). Itâs possible that all finite beings will experience strife from their environment, just by virtue of the fact that all their wishes are not instantaneously gratified.
O- True. But in general very few, if any, call an evil not being able to fly. Natural evils are not reducible to unfulfilled wishes. What is evil is meanigless. What is considered out of order. It is not an evil to die peacefully in old age. It is an evil to die slowly and painfully due to cancer. It is not an evil to be born hungry. It is an evil that a motherâs tit has no milk to give. Certain conditions we can see are shared by all beings. Mortality, however, is the greatest natural evil and that is why it is the greatest gift offered by Jesus.
â 3B) There is no âhigher goodâ for which some level of natural evil is admissible- That there is a certain, survivable level of strife and anguish in the world may go to serve other purpose, that when understood, makes the state of the world excusable.
O- Your greatest insight. There is âevilâ-- and God is the cause. The evil of this world is excused by the promise of Heaven. Is that simple. 3C is also right on the money. Alas, it takes a lot of faith for this to work.
But here is me playing Satanâs advocate:
If in Heaven, why not so on Earth. If Heaven is free of evil, why canât the Earth be so?
An Apostle responds: âThe world is our cross which we must bear. God must remind us of our frailty of this life that we may continue to hope for the nextâ.
The Advocate: So God knows how to move and excite his creation, his servantâŚwith a whip! The Problem of Evil is the Problem with Godâs mysterious waysâŚ
Great job, Ucci! You really put a lot of thought into the defense of religion and the religious in general. I think that you have argued well, and that you have shown how religion and religious are not necessarily illogical. You are my hero!
tdfmissmatch
OK, ok, thatâs enough of that. If you need a hero, I reccomend Plantinga and maybe Swinburne as places to start. Seriously, seriously, check em out.
Omar
Nevertheless, if weâre going to grant the free will defense for humans (admit that humans have free will to the extent that God is absolved responsibility for the things we do to each other), then I see no reason to include this other host of beings. It was a minor point, though.
Omnipotence means whatever we want it to. What's important is, does the idea of beings other than God having [i]some[/i] power damage what common believers, the Church fathers, and current Church leaders mean when they say 'God' and 'omnipotent'. I would say it does not- well, maybe the Calvinists- but then, we know their answer to the Problem of Evil. If your notion of omnipotence insists that nobody but God can do anything, then choose another word for what God is- no different than for those who's definition of omnipotence includes God being able to do the logically impossible.
Well, possibility is limited by circumstance. Sure, God could have pretented all evil by, for example, not having created anything but Himself. I should have been more clear- what I mean is, I donât think itâs necessary that God be able to prevent all natural evil in all circumstances, that is, there may be certain other aims He has in mind, which in order to achieve, make it impossible for him to prevent all natural evil.
I think I can wrap up the next to points in one comment here:
Iâm supposing that thatâs because of the state of the world. We donât see not being able to fly as an evil, we donât see the need to eat or sleep as an evil, because we have more pressing evils to consider. What Iâm saying here is that if I listed me personal top 100 examples of natural evil, and God made them all go away, I could come up with another top 100 very quickly, once I adjusted to me new life. And so on, until I became God myself. I think that free, limited beings are always going to see there being something wrong with the universe.
If that was the only way people died, then yes, it would be considered an evil, I believe.
It takes a huge amount of faith to use this point to actually feel better when horribly evil things happen to you- but not so much faith to use this point as a rhetorical tool to defeat the problem of evil. Thatâs all Iâm really after.
The first step would be, of course, to seperate what weâve actually been told about Heaven by Scripture, from what weâve assumed about Heaven due to our culture. What, at bare minimum, has been promised us? For example, is the idea that there will never be any natural evil in Heaven guarenteed, or is that something weâve come up with after the fact, like the whole Nike-esque conception of angels and so on? Itâs an area I know nearly nothing about. Other than a general impression that Heaven is âwicked-awesomeâ compared to Earth, I wouldnât know what to say.
Hello Ussci:
â Nevertheless, if weâre going to grant the free will defense for humans (admit that humans have free will to the extent that God is absolved responsibility for the things we do to each other), then I see no reason to include this other host of beings. It was a minor point, though.
O- But that point now looms large. If Satanâs Freewill is nothing before the will of God then what hope is there for the will of a mere mortal? Freewill is free in relation to other human beings. In relation to God, freewill is an impossibility given the other accepted attributes of God. Freewill; what a loaded premiseâŚ
â Omnipotence means whatever we want it to.
O- Only by an abuse of language. The word is used at all because it does not mean whatever at all but a certain definition applies to it while other definitions do not.
â Whatâs important is, does the idea of beings other than God having some power damage what common believers, the Church fathers, and current Church leaders mean when they say âGodâ and âomnipotentâ. I would say it does not- well, maybe the Calvinists- but then, we know their answer to the Problem of Evil.
O- Funny that you mention Calvin, but Luther too had a similar take on the matter and both refered back to St Agustine for the basis of their theory. Certainly, the Bible itself is not so written as to avert this notion or theory. Other beings, such as ourselves, have certain powers. We may enjoy a freedom of will; but this freedom is not due to our own device but by the leniency of God. He can grant freewill and can as easily take it away. Can God change a manâs heart? Can God overcome oneâs will or is our will more potent, or so potent, that not even God, the Creator of all, can hope to change or chain our will? If God exist, our freewill is but an illusionâŚ
â If your notion of omnipotence insists that nobody but God can do anything, then choose another word for what God is- no different than for those whoâs definition of omnipotence includes God being able to do the logically impossible.
O- You mean like the square circle? The unliftable Rock? Omnipotence, by definition, cannot create itâs own prision. This inability is not a limitation, but an expression of itâs definition. I can define omnipotence in two ways: Negatively and Positively. The Omnipotent cannot be bound. Cannot be circumscribed. Cannot depend on something else. Cannot create a situation in which it cannot do something.
The Omnipotent can trancend our views of the universe. Can violate imagined âLawsâ. Can intervene. Can make 2 fishes, plus 2 other fishes, equal 5,000 fishes.
God cannot make a in the same way that he cannot make a square circle. The definition dictates the idea. The definition of Omnipotent cannot allow for the creation of an unliftable rock. It goes against logic, and the definition of Omnipotent. Same with Square circles.
Now, one may object to this and say that God is subject then to my idea of God. The attribute of Omnipotence, however, is idea. I have not witnessed omnipotence; nor, for that matter, God as He is in-Himself. It is solely by ideas that we frame what may be said, what may be expressed. It is not that God in-Himself, is subject to what I can conceive (my ideas on âgoodâ or what can be meant by omni), but that what I can conceive and express are ideas on the ultimate unknown. He might trancend logic, math and geometry, which are visions we have on nature, but if He does, on that we are speechless. If God trancends my language, then He trancends my mind and is inconceivable. If Godâs potency is limited and unlimited all at once, then I cannot speak. My words, my ideas, are units that express either/or scenarios. My language, is logical. What is illogical detroys our ability to conceive an idea of the unknown.
â Well, possibility is limited by circumstance.
O- But the Creator and sustaining force is beyond all circumstance. We are limited by circumstances. Of course, weâre not omnipotent. But if we were omnipotent then no circumstance could limit us. If there exists a circumstance that limits us in some way then we are subject to that circumstance which Lords over us. We are then said to have power, but cannot be, by definition, omnipotent.
â I donât think itâs necessary that God be able to prevent all natural evil in all circumstances, that is, there may be certain other aims He has in mind, which in order to achieve, make it impossible for him to prevent all natural evil.
O- Playing the Devilâs advocate: âSo the Problem persists. Why do the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper?â
- St Martyr: âBecause the circumstances make it necessary, in such an occasion, that evil must exist.â
DA: âSo then God is a very good God but very incapable of eliminating evil, therefore He is not omnipotent.â - St Martyr: âThat is true only by your definition of âOmnipotentâ, which I do not need to share.â
DA: âNeither do you share my vocabulary and by consequence, my vision of God.â
â âŚif I listed me personal top 100 examples of natural evil, and God made them all go away, I could come up with another top 100 very quickly, once I adjusted to me new life. And so on, until I became God myself. I think that free, limited beings are always going to see there being something wrong with the universe."
O- Deep. Evil is a subjective idea. What is evil in our perspective is good in anotherâsâŚincluding Godâs. But, letâs not fault limited beings just yet. God abhors sin and considers the devil âevilâ, yet He is an unlimited Being. So, like Job I declare that even if I maintain the commands now given, other commands then pop up just as quickly, once God became adjusted to my compliance. God is free to always find faults in his creation, by the mere fact that he is creator and we the creation. So it must be since the only remedy would be that God could create God, which violates logic given our premises.
Could a happier situation be found for eternity?
I think Omar succecfully owned religion.
By the way thezeus18 I agree with you that religion (specifically christianity) is illogical.
âI think Omar succecfully owned religion.â
Just what do you mean by that?