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.
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.
Well, thank you for defining me, and many like us. How could we have known!
Guess what, we really don't care what you believe or don't. We start to care very much at the first sign of you wanting YOUR belief system, or any part of it, being impose outside of the home and your place of worship. You will hear from us then. Your freedom of religion ends the moment you want it to apply to us.
Period.
Now have a good day, and a good life, until you, like the rest of us, turn into worm, bug and slug food.
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.
The fact that you can not provide a morally sufficient reason, and I can not think of a rational one is the evidence there are no reasons. It is not merely presumed as you said. But you could easily refute the argument by providing morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering/evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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.
If there was an argument to refute the position, the argument would not be made. The fact that in this one instance you want atheists to attempt to refute their own argument just shows you are afraid to do so yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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...
English may not be my first language, but even I know the difference between an argument against theism and anti-theism. And by using the word anti-theist, you are implying an ulterior motive. Stop playing innocent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And you seem desperate to shift the burden of proof when it gets to be too heavy.
We have done the work, it is for the theists to prove their claim.
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!
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.
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.
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...
And you seem desperate to shift the burden of proof when it gets to be too heavy.
actually that isn't true.
we said that god could know of a greater good that comes about due to that evil. And that an all powerful thing knows more than us.
can you show us that it was solely about god killing over 50 million people for no reason? or that it proves that it was done because it is all evil?
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.
Well, I don't quite agree.
Sometimes when atheists publicly express their position it isn't to convert people. It's to say -- essentially -- back off, you don't get to tell other people how to live.
The fact that you can not provide a morally sufficient reason, and I can not think of a rational one is the evidence there are no reasons.
That's a non sequitur, and you're once again trying to shift the burden of proof when the problem of evil (which is the anti-theist's argument, relying on this unsupported premise) is challenged.
Quote:
But you could easily refute the argument by providing morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering/evil.
Or by just pointing out that the argument's premises aren't supported
Quote:
If there was an argument to refute the position, the argument would not be made.
That's an even more obvious and embarrassing non sequitur...
Quote:
The fact that in this one instance you want atheists to attempt to refute their own argument just shows you are afraid to do so yourself.
Not sure what you're meaning here. I want anti-theists to support their arguments, but they are obviously unable to do so.
Quote:
English may not be my first language, but even I know the difference between an argument against theism and anti-theism. And by using the word anti-theist, you are implying an ulterior motive. Stop playing innocent.
I think making it a point to construct/spread arguments against theism (particularly arguments that aren't even any good) makes you an anti-theist. I mean, I suppose one could build a case just to play devil's advocate but they normally let you know that's what they're doing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
actually that isn't true.
we said that god could know of a greater good that comes about due to that evil. And that an all powerful thing knows more than us.
can you show us that it was solely about god killing over 50 million people for no reason? or that it proves that it was done because it is all evil?
Were you meaning to quote me, or someone else? Because I'm defending that exact stance, that an omniscient god could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil.
Everyone who claims to be Atheist who goes to religious pages/sites to toll aren't true Atheists.
To toll? If you meant to troll...then I would say that you really don't understand what an Atheist is. Many Atheist's are very spiritual people who happen to not ascribe to any religious dogma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by march2
A genuine Atheist isn't going to take the personal beliefs of another person and make it a personal crusade of their own.
Can you define what you mean by a "genuine Atheist"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by march2
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.
I don't see people being condemned for their beliefs as much as they are being condemned for their agenda to push worshiping unicorns into our public schools, as well as into politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by march2
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.
I disagree. I think it's psychotic for anyone to push their belief in a non-existent god onto others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by march2
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.
How does this make someone a pseudo-Atheist? I would think a pseudo-Atheist would be a person pretending to not believe in a god but secretly believing in one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by march2
It makes no sense; fighting things that don't exist.
It's very important to fight against illusions that are being forced upon society especially when that illusion causes oppression, imprisonment and death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by march2
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.
Sorry Charlie but there are more options than just these 3.
Or we intuitively knew at a very young age that there appears to be something not right about religion. We paid attention to this as we aged and gained more knowledge and wisdom. Then we realize that it's been a myth spread throughout recorded history involving many gods and many different religions. We recognized the contradictions and false claims. We realized that the god as presented in the holy text has got to be the most unpleasant character in ALL FICTION writings…this fictitious god is jealous and proud of it. Petty, vindictive unjust, unforgiving, racist and an ethnic cleanser urging his people on to acts of genocide. We came to the conclusion that we were correct at our young age and that there is truly something very disturbing about religion. We realized it was a cult based on lies to lure prey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by march2
It's one of those three things in all cases.
No it's not as I just gave you another option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by march2
Otherwise, you wouldn't make other people's personal beliefs such an intrical [sic] part of YOUR life.
I don't think anyone is doing such a thing other than the folks who think it's their duty to interfere and try to invade others lives as the American christian fanatic who's life was taken by the natives who's island he tried to invade while shouting bible speak at them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by march2
I've always found the pseudo to be angry, bitter, very intolerant, and all-consumed with this issue.
I've never met such a person...especially a person pretending to not believe in a god but secretly does. Although I do think there is a poster here who might fit into this category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by march2
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.
It sounds like you think the only people deserving of respect are the believers. Why don't the believers show respect toward the Atheists? Why do believers feel the need to stick their nose into what others believe about a god?
Quote:
Originally Posted by march2
The same responsibility lies with the believer, to show respect towards those who don't believe.
Good luck with that. Sometimes you find this but most of the time you don't. That's the issue with the "us vs. them" mentality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by march2
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.
This is a false narrative you have created in your mind.
That's a non sequitur, and you're once again trying to shift the burden of proof when the problem of evil (which is the anti-theist's argument, relying on this unsupported premise) is challenged.
Or by just pointing out that the argument's premises aren't supported
That's an even more obvious and embarrassing non sequitur...
Not sure what you're meaning here. I want anti-theists to support their arguments, but they are obviously unable to do so.
I think making it a point to construct/spread arguments against theism (particularly arguments that aren't even any good) makes you an anti-theist. I mean, I suppose one could build a case just to play devil's advocate but they normally let you know that's what they're doing...
Were you meaning to quote me, or someone else? Because I'm defending that exact stance, that an omniscient god could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil.
All I'm seeing here is that you persist in saying that the argument from evil is supported and thus is invalid.
But it is supported; we have a morality supposedly given by God and God fails to act in a way that is moral. The best case you have is that God can do what he likes, but that still doesn't make it moral. It merely makes it dictatorial, bullying and petty, which isn't moral either.
And yet you still persist in saying that the problem of evil is not supported.
"That's an even more obvious and embarrassing non sequitur..."
Of course it isn't. It's a valid point that if a position or argument is soundly refuted, then it follows that it would not be put. At least not in rational arguments. Theists put the same debbunked arguments again and again. Either you don't think logically or this was just waving away a valid point without addressing it. Something you've been doing throughout this post of yours.
Some do, some don't. Just like some atheists acknowledge that the problem of evil argument is a failure, and others keep trying to push it through
The problem of evil is only a failure when measured against some god postulations.
If you postulate a god that contains evil as part of its nature, no problem.
If a postulated god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then evil is a problem. There really isn’t any way around it.
Last edited by fishbrains; 02-03-2019 at 08:59 AM..
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.
