Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that you might have blocked me years ago, but since this seems to be addressing my question about guilt, I will attempt to answer you. If someone/something had chosen you to be healed of cancer, yet a child next door was not healed, would you not feel guilty for having been chosen? Personally,(and this is easier said than done), I would hope that the neighbor child would be healed instead of me. I would ask the "healer" his/her/its justification for healing me instead of the child, if only the one of us could be healed. Of course, with the omnipotent God belief, it would seem that both could be healed.
This argument is old...and ridiculous.
By this logic...you could ask every Religious person if they feel guilty for having enough to eat, knowing others are starving. Especially if they are at all overweight from eating too much.
Also, by this logic...if some Deity is evil and horrible for not helping, when they could...all (that would be anybody) that hold any unnecessary abundance (more food than you need, shelter more than just basic...forget jewelry, a third flatscreen, designer clothes/shoes, a cruise vacation, etc) while others lack even the minimum...must deem themselves as evil as they claim "Nonhelping even though they could" Deities are.
Hold yourselves to the same standard you hold these supposed Deities. You COULD help out all you are able. Do you? If not, by the standard you judge Deities, judge yourself.
This argument is old...and ridiculous.
By this logic...you could ask every Religious person if they feel guilty for having enough to eat, knowing others are starving. Especially if they are at all overweight from eating too much.
Also, by this logic...if some Deity is evil and horrible for not helping, when they could...all (that would be anybody) that hold any unnecessary abundance (more food than you need, shelter more than just basic...forget jewelry, a third flatscreen, designer clothes/shoes, a cruise vacation, etc) while others lack even the minimum...must deem themselves as evil as they claim "Nonhelping even though they could" Deities are.
Hold yourselves to the same standard you hold these supposed Deities. You COULD help out all you are able. Do you? If not, by the standard you judge Deities, judge yourself.
It's not ridiculous, it was one of the main flaws in the trap. I couldn't see myself as all that different from the people God was to destroy. "Why would God spare me and destroy all those other people when he could just as easily save them?" The answer is "He wouldn't". I don't know why you think someone who would dare question the superiority of a certain elite class of people should not do so unless the doubters can solve all problems.
It's not ridiculous, it was one of the main flaws in the trap. I couldn't see myself as all that different from the people God was to destroy. "Why would God spare me and destroy all those other people when he could just as easily save them?" The answer is "He wouldn't". I don't know why you think someone who would dare question the superiority of a certain elite class of people should not do so unless the doubters can solve all problems.
Of course...I view the Deities of Religion as metaphorical entities conjured up by men, and do not actually exist in Reality.
But, as you see, there are some that claim these Entities (especially the Abrahamic Gods) are evil and horrible because they supposedly help some, but not others that they could help.
I don't believe that not helping all you can makes you evil and horrible...but those that question the mindset and behavior of Deities for that obviously do.
That sets one of their standards for being evil and horrible to be: Not helping as many as you can, all you can.
Now, the Catch 22 is, since Atheists do not believe God exists...the only ones to actually apply that judgement to is humans, including themselves!
SO...guess who they must admit REALLY failed the moral standard they set...to feed/help the starving and needy all you can?
Of course...I view the Deities of Religion as metaphorical entities conjured up by men, and do not actually exist in Reality.
But, as you see, there are some that claim these Entities (especially the Abrahamic Gods) are evil and horrible because they supposedly help some, but not others that they could help.
I don't believe that not helping all you can makes you evil and horrible...but those that question the mindset and behavior of Deities for that obviously do. That sets one of their standards for being evil and horrible to be: Not helping as many as you can, all you can.
Now, the Catch 22 is, since Atheists do not believe God exists...the only ones to actually apply that judgement to is humans, including themselves!
SO...guess who they must admit REALLY failed the moral standard they set...to feed/help the starving and needy all you can?
It's not to say that God is evil. It's to say it's inconsistent that an omnipotent God would be allowing certain things. Why would you think a person should be held to the same standard that God would be? Do you understand that it doesn't make sense to some of us?
It's not to say that God is evil. It's to say it's inconsistent that an omnipotent God would be allowing certain things. Why would you think a person should be held to the same standard that God would be? Do you understand that it doesn't make sense to some of us?
But there actually is no Jehovah, Allah, etc, according to the Atheists...as they make an inane literal analysis and pass judgements for deeds not done that could have been.
What difference would it make what entity it was that doesn't help when they could...if that is the moral standard they are arguing?
If they claim that is an evil and horrible position for the Entity they criticize to take....why would it not apply as a universal moral standard to all, including them?
Could we have a little sensitivity here? There is no need to use a loved one's deceased relative as content or an example for the pro's or con's of the OP. As such, a number of posts have needed to be deleted.
But there actually is no Jehovah, Allah, etc, according to the Atheists...as they make an inane literal analysis and pass judgements for deeds not done that could have been.
What difference would it make what entity it was that doesn't help when they could...if that is the moral standard they are arguing?
If they claim that is an evil and horrible position for the Entity they criticize to take....why would it not apply as a universal moral standard to all, including them?
I can only speak for myself but it's not really an intelligence thing. I plain and simply do not believe that any of us are so above another that some should be entitled to the keys to the kingdom while some suffer. That is the basis of the religion I was in and many of the one's that are causing the problems. The reason I'm not being murdered right now or starving somewhere is luck of the draw. There is nothing better about me than where I was born and what I was born with.
I'm using my own innate sense of fairness to judge. We are talking about perfection here not humans that sometimes make bad calls, sometimes get a little frightened or greedy but perfection. This is pure perfection and love that allows...
You do realize when this comes up it's usually someone who has prayed for something and uses it as proof of God. This is the flaw in that logic as I see it.
Edit: I'm watching this now and it's fantastic. It really applies to what we are talking about Goldie so God must have given it to me. It's talking about the insular cortex and moral disgust. The thought of an all powerful being allowing a child to starve to death just so it can settle an issue of sovereignty. My moral disgust can be someone else's perfectly normal because we see things differently.
I can only speak for myself but it's not really an intelligence thing. I plain and simply do not believe that any of us are so above another that some should be entitled to the keys to the kingdom while some suffer. That is the basis of the religion I was in and many of the one's that are causing the problems. The reason I'm not being murdered right now or starving somewhere is luck of the draw. There is nothing better about me than where I was born and what I was born with.
I'm using my own innate sense of fairness to judge. We are talking about perfection here not humans that sometimes make bad calls, sometimes get a little frightened or greedy but perfection. This is pure perfection and love that allows...
You do realize when this comes up it's usually someone who has prayed for something and uses it as proof of God. This is the flaw in that logic as I see it.
Of course I would see that as a flaw for a "pure perfection and love entity".
But, like me...the Atheists saying that not helping all you can is evil and horrible, also say that the Deities that fail in that regard do not exist.
So...now all that is left is the "moral standard" of "Help all you can, all you are able", that they have put on the table through their criticism of that failure by the Entities they claim do not exist.
They claim there is no Jehovah/Yahweh to fail to do anything...but they did put a "moral standard" claim forth, so that now does exist. Why wouldn't they think all should comply to that standard, lest they be immoral?
Right is right and wrong is wrong...whether by a Deity or a person, no?
MOF...if one wants to assess it literally, the Deity could just declare, "Their life belongs to me anyway...they didn't do anything to get it, and they can't keep it...cuz it's mine. I handle things how I see fit. I make the rules...it's your job to follow them. And, don't EVER question me!"...or anything else the Deity wanted to declare.
If one is gonna question the mindset and behavior of a being...then that puts the being as able to make any excuse they care to.
If the Deity is claimed nonexistent...that just leaves any moral code that was put forth as a standard for judging the love and care level of others.
Of course I would see that as a flaw for a "pure perfection and love entity".
But, like me...the Atheists saying that not helping all you can is evil and horrible, also say that the Deities that fail in that regard do not exist.
So...now all that is left is the "moral standard" of "Help all you can, all you are able", that they have put on the table through their criticism of that failure by the Entities they claim do not exist.
They claim there is no Jehovah/Yahweh to fail to do anything...but they did put a "moral standard" claim forth, so that now does exist. Why wouldn't they think all should comply to that standard, lest they be immoral?
Right is right and wrong is wrong...whether by a Deity or a person, no?
MOF...if one wants to assess it literally, the Deity could just declare, "Their life belongs to me anyway...they didn't do anything to get it, and they can't keep it...cuz it's mine. I handle things how I see fit. I make the rules...it's your job to follow them. And, don't EVER question me!"...or anything else the Deity wanted to declare.
If one is gonna question the mindset and behavior of a being...then that puts the being as able to make any excuse they care to.
If the Deity is claimed nonexistent...that just leaves any moral code that was put forth as a standard for judging the love and care level of others.
I'm pretty much only saying answered prayers cannot be used as proof of God's existence because it introduces that flaw we agree on as well as the other errors like bias. I have Christian testimony. It can't be used as evidence because there are other explanations. I'm not asserting that there is no God only that the evidence presented isn't convincing to me.
Just to be clear, I don't think someone who doesn't help others is evil. I see it as socially correct but if someone didn't want to help others I would say that is their right. I may or may not be less inclined to help them if the situation arose but I wouldn't pass a moral judgment on them. I try to keep my moral standards applied to myself only but I'm still pretty crappy at that one and I have been angry a bit. I realize I don't control right or wrong beyond myself but luckily that's all I'm responsible for.
I'm pretty much only saying answered prayers cannot be used as proof of God's existence because it introduces that flaw we agree on as well as the other errors like bias. I have Christian testimony. It can't be used as evidence because there are other explanations. I'm not asserting that there is no God only that the evidence presented isn't convincing to me.
Just to be clear, I don't think someone who doesn't help others is evil. I see it as socially correct but if someone didn't want to help others I would say that is their right. I may or may not be less inclined to help them if the situation arose but I wouldn't pass a moral judgment on them. I try to keep my moral standards applied to myself only but I'm still pretty crappy at that one and I have been angry a bit. I realize I don't control right or wrong beyond myself but luckily that's all I'm responsible for.
I'm working it from another angle.
That when the Religious claim God answered their prayers, helped them, healed them, etc (which necessarily requires a God to exist)...a common Atheist comeback is to note that there are millions of others (note starving children, maybe even show pictures) suffering as well that are still afflicted, and that this is indicative of the Deity as evil and uncaring of suffering cuz those people could have been helped too, but were not.
That puts a moral standard in play...that if a being can help more, but doesn't, they are evil and uncaring.
So, "answered" prayers do not prove a Deity exists...and the Atheists do agree that a Deity is not proved to exist. BUT...in the course of the argument...they put forth what is necessarily a moral standard claim. That if a being could help more, but doesn't, they are obviously evil and malevolent.
So...now the moral standard is proffered...a Deity being proved or not aside.
They judge a being (metaphorical or real) as evil and malevolent by a standard they fail themselves...but rarely do I see them declare themselves as possessed of the same negative traits they pin on the Deity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
