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.
It is your initial position, that the argument is illogical that relies on the unsupported premise, that their COULD BE morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil.
It's not up to us to prove that there could be morally sufficient reasons. The problem of evil argument belongs to the anti-theists, and it makes the opposite assumption. All we have to do is point that out (that this premise is just assumed and not supported) and suggest you guys go back to the drawing board and bring us more of a challenge next round
It's not up to us to prove that there could be morally sufficient reasons. The problem of evil argument belongs to the anti-theists, and it makes the opposite assumption. All we have to do is point that out (that this premise is just assumed and not supported) and suggest you guys go back to the drawing board and bring us more of a challenge next round
There is so much I am going to have say I am very confused.
the problem of evil means there is the problem of good?
I think the point is being made is strictly within the limits of teaching of a religion vic. I think their (and my point would be this if I was not thinking it through past anti-theism) is that christians claiming the thing is all powerful and all loving counters observation. but ... you are correct too. The biblegod isn't all evil either. there is no way to prove that it is all evil anymore than proving all loving. both are equally incorrect. or both equally valid.
The argument isn't if something all power made us. "all loving" is the point of contention.
It's not up to us to prove that there could be morally sufficient reasons. The problem of evil argument belongs to the anti-theists, and it makes the opposite assumption. All we have to do is point that out (that this premise is just assumed and not supported) and suggest you guys go back to the drawing board and bring us more of a challenge next round
It is up to you if you wish to refute the argument. And if you do not, then you can not claim it is an irrational position, only that it might be (and that you have no evidence either way). You can repeat your excuse and misrepresentation (orange bold) as often as you like, but if you can not show a morally sufficient reason, you can not claim the argument is irrational.
I note you also once again use the loaded anti-theist instead of atheist.
I also note you omitted the rest of the post. You do seem desperate to avoid providing a morally sufficient reason for the holocaust.
Everyone who claims to be Atheist who goes to religious pages/sites to toll aren't true Atheists. A genuine Atheist isn't going to take the personal beliefs of another person and make it a personal crusade of their own. For example, if someone wants to worship unicorns, I really don't care one way or another if they do or not. I might think it's a bit nuts, but that person has a right to do so and to do so without any interference or condemnation from me. It's psychotic to fight against non existent things. So those who make it a part of their lives to fight against gods they claim don't exist are simply pseudo-Anteists. Radio Host Joe Rogan is a true Atheist. He doesn't believe. If someone ask about his unbelief, he answers the question, and leaves it at that in a respectful manner. By contrast, a pseudo-Atheist frantically and feverishly goes out of their way to challenge and debunk these gods they say don't exist by attacking those who do believe. It makes no sense; fighting things that don't exist. You either: A. Believe, but you're fighting the draw to God that you feel tugging inside. B. You somehow feel threatened by other people's personal beliefs in a god. C. You do believe, but you've been wounded and hurt by someone or an event and your hostile reaction is your way of "getting back" at God and/or the person who wronged you. It's one of those three things in all cases. Otherwise, you wouldn't make other people's personal beliefs such an intrical part of YOUR life. I've always found the pseudo to be angry, bitter, very intolerant, and all-consumed with this issue. The Atheist happy, respectful, willing to agree to disagree and, rarely ever even brings up the subject of God. At this point of the discussion, whether a god really exists or not isn't even the point. It would be foolish and an utter waste of time to go into that argument when the pseudo-Atheist has a complete mindset of a troll, rather than an Atheist's whose mind is that of unbelief, but still has respect for the believer and their right to believe without being demeaned. The same responsibility lies with the believer, to show respect towards those who don't believe. So, those who troll religious pages do so, not because they necessarily believe there really isn't a god, but because of things they're fighting within themselves.
Everyone who claims to be Atheist who goes to religious pages/sites to toll aren't true Atheists. A genuine Atheist isn't going to take the personal beliefs of another person and make it a personal crusade of their own. For example, if someone wants to worship unicorns, I really don't care one way or another if they do or not. I might think it's a bit nuts, but that person has a right to do so and to do so without any interference or condemnation from me. It's psychotic to fight against non existent things. So those who make it a part of their lives to fight against gods they claim don't exist are simply pseudo-Anteists. Radio Host Joe Rogan is a true Atheist. He doesn't believe. If someone ask about his unbelief, he answers the question, and leaves it at that in a respectful manner. By contrast, a pseudo-Atheist frantically and feverishly goes out of their way to challenge and debunk these gods they say don't exist by attacking those who do believe. It makes no sense; fighting things that don't exist. You either: A. Believe, but you're fighting the draw to God that you feel tugging inside. B. You somehow feel threatened by other people's personal beliefs in a god. C. You do believe, but you've been wounded and hurt by someone or an event and your hostile reaction is your way of "getting back" at God and/or the person who wronged you. It's one of those three things in all cases. Otherwise, you wouldn't make other people's personal beliefs such an intrical part of YOUR life. I've always found the pseudo to be angry, bitter, very intolerant, and all-consumed with this issue. The Atheist happy, respectful, willing to agree to disagree and, rarely ever even brings up the subject of God. At this point of the discussion, whether a god really exists or not isn't even the point. It would be foolish and an utter waste of time to go into that argument when the pseudo-Atheist has a complete mindset of a troll, rather than an Atheist's whose mind is that of unbelief, but still has respect for the believer and their right to believe without being demeaned. The same responsibility lies with the believer, to show respect towards those who don't believe. So, those who troll religious pages do so, not because they necessarily believe there really isn't a god, but because of things they're fighting within themselves.
BOOM, Whoops, that religious terrorist took out your straw man atheist. May it rest in pieces.
I think their (and my point would be this if I was not thinking it through past anti-theism) is that christians claiming the thing is all powerful and all loving counters observation.
That's just it; all we're observing is things we don't like. We're not observing an absence of justification for it, confirmation that it's unnecessary towards some overriding good, etc. This is where the person offering the problem of evil argument simply makes the assumption. The leap is usually expressed here: "Is god able but not willing to stop suffering/evil? Then he is malevolent." That is precisely the claim that needs substantiation. But people don't bother to try giving that. Instead they shift the burden of proof onto the theist (mostly because the theist lets it happen), because they know perfectly well they can't support this premise!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
It is up to you if you wish to refute the argument.
What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The key premise is that god cannot have morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering/evil. But nothing's there to support that premise, so it can be dismissed without argument.
Quote:
And if you do not, then you can not claim it is an irrational position, only that it might be
Wrong. Rationality is about method, not the accuracy of the conclusion. And since there is no argument in place to justify the premise, it is quite irrational indeed. Even if it happens to be true that god could not have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil/suffering, the rationale is clearly lacking.
Quote:
I note you also once again use the loaded anti-theist instead of atheist.
When discussing arguments against theism, of course! Are you saying there's something wrong with being an anti-theist? Because I never used it as an insult...
Quote:
You do seem desperate to avoid providing a morally sufficient reason for the holocaust.
And you seem desperate to shift the burden of proof when it gets to be too heavy.
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.
