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.
1. We do have a couple of people here who seem to fade in and out of trolliness but they happen to be on the christian side of things. The very few real trolls I have seen here seem to dash in for a day or two and then are never seen again.
2. A genuine atheist might very well take the personal beliefs of another person and make it a personal crusade IF that religious person is attempting to push his religion on to others. And in fact, it is the christian tendency to want to make the rest of society think like they do that is the crux of the problem.
3. I haven't noticed any self-identifying atheists here being frantic or feverish.
4. I also haven't noticed anyone here being "all-consumed"...at least not on the atheist side.
5. Sure, atheism is somewhat about inner struggles, as is religion. That's perhaps one of the few things we share. Because if you ain't doing christianity with some inner struggle, then you're not really doing christianity.
Religious forums? Seems like a waste of time and electrons. Why post on a forum of which is devoted to a subject of which holds no relevance to one. I don’t knit or fly airplanes. I don’t visit knitting or airplane forums. So why all the none-spiritual people on this forum? Uncertain about one’s belief system? Perhaps.
If I’ve asked this question before, forgive me. I am simply perplexed.
What if the topic simply interests them? I'm a former Christian and I'd say that's why I still visit religious forums. I started visiting forums similar to this when I was a Christian and I didn't stop once I became a nonbeliever.
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.
What if the topic simply interests them? I'm a former Christian and I'd say that's why I still visit religious forums. I started visiting forums similar to this when I was a Christian and I didn't stop once I became a nonbeliever.
Of course. It's bizarre that a few of our other posters can't see that.
I suppose they think that someone can't be interested in discussing -- for example -- the Civil War unless they are currently a Civil War soldier...which of course is impossible.
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.
Bayes theorem is a non sequitur? But thank you for your home goal. The fact that no matter what circumstance I can think of, the possibility that there is a justifiable reason for evil always fails. That is the evidence that supports the argument.
Whereas your argument that there could be a justifiable reason is not supported, so by your own rhetoric, it is irrational. And there is your problem. To either avoid rebutting the problem or to actually attempt to refute the problem of evil, you need to demonstrate there could be a reason. Simply asserting this may be the case is not evidence.
And once again, even asserting there may be a justifiable reason for evil means you are making a claim, and therefore the burden of proof is on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Or by just pointing out that the argument's premises aren't supported
Second home goal.
In Bayesian terms, your argument is not looking too good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
That's an even more obvious and embarrassing non sequitur...
Do you really think if atheists found a flaw in an argument, they would still use it? What an obvious and embarrassing non sequitur from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Not sure what you're meaning here. I want anti-theists to support their arguments, but they are obviously unable to do so.
So you keep asserting. Yet all we get from you is empty rhetoric and evasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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.
Except you are not. You are just asserting this. But now you have admitted to making a claim, you need to defend it.
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.
no, as a matter of fact it isn't. It can be omnibenevolent because it is always doing things to the better of the creation. Although parts of the creation may not see it that way at certain times.
it kills, knowingly kills, 50 million and saves 100 trillion.
the problem of evil means the problem of good. A good gd can do things that look bad to humans because humans don't know enough.
that is completely different than arguing a particular type of christian god.
Sounds like just an assertion to me. How did you go about determining that god is wrong to allow suffering/evil?
For the reasons already explained: The morality given us - which by all reason ought to be a morality that a god uses - would have us intervene to prevent evil while a god does not. In addition it would never have a punishment for eternity based on fuch a petty concept as belief in something that God is careful to keep unverifiable. Finally, my own take is that people applaud and excuse God's deeds in the Bible. When they are doing that, they do not say 'that was a good act becauu God knows what he is doing'. They say that couldn't be God, that was men. They are applying human morality.
God's morality fails. Whe Christians abandon bits of the Bible and cherry pick what seems to be an acceptable Christianity, they are judging God and rejecting Biblical morality and replacing it with human morality.
Quote:
No, the best case is that god would know what should be done, better than we could.
No, that is not the best case, because it depends on an a prori assumption that a god exists, and thus requires an explanation that it knows best - and even that rquires an assumption about the essential goodness of the being. The logically correct position would be to start from no assumption of a god, to consider the god claim of the Bible (since the God's morality debate only applies to Biblegod) and accept that case for it not being tenable is the sound explanation and would mean the Bibleclaim for a good God is untenable and That god does not exists. The claim that it is good in a way that we can't understand is merely an excuse and evasion and is Not the 'best' case.
Moreover, I say that the fact that you argue from an a priory god position adds conviction to the suspicion that you are Not an atheist. And We still wait for you to stop evading the matter and say on the thread that you do not believe in God.
Quote:
Because it isn't, since the key premise therein is just assumed and never established.
The key premise is that our morality is derived from God. Even if it was derived from man, the sub premise is that it is better than God's (as described in the Bible). These premises have been made and that the Bible claim of a god god (let alone perfectly good) is untenable and refuted by the believers either trying to excuse God or brazening it out (he can do what he likes). That supports (not to say establishes) the premises.
Quote:
Nonsense. People can (and often do) cling to refuted arguments all the time.
Indeed the do, but they make laughing stocks of themselves and can no longer claim to be arguing rationally.
Quote:
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
Please quote some atheist who 'acknowledge that the problem of evil argument is a failure'. I can find a shedload who consider that it is one of the biggest problems for the (Christian) God -claim.
No, that is not the best case, because it depends on an a priori assumption that a god exists, and thus requires an explanation that it knows best - and even that requires an assumption about the essential goodness of the being. The logically correct position would be to start from no assumption of a god, to consider the god claim of the Bible (since the God's morality debate only applies to Biblegod) and accept that case for it not being tenable is the sound explanation and would mean the Bible claim for a good God is untenable and That God does not exist. The claim that it is good in a way that we can't understand is merely an excuse and evasion and is Not the 'best' case.
Moreover, I say that the fact that you argue from an a priory god position adds conviction to the suspicion that you are Not an atheist. And We still wait for you to stop evading the matter and say on the thread that you do not believe in God.
Why do YOUR a priori assumptions NOT need to be justified?
For the reasons already explained: The morality given us - which by all reason ought to be a morality that a god uses - would have us intervene to prevent evil while a god does not. In addition it would never have a punishment for eternity based on fuch a petty concept as belief in something that God is careful to keep unverifiable. Finally, my own take is that people applaud and excuse God's deeds in the Bible. When they are doing that, they do not say 'that was a good act becauu God knows what he is doing'. They say that couldn't be God, that was men. They are applying human morality.
God's morality fails. Whe Christians abandon bits of the Bible and cherry pick what seems to be an acceptable Christianity, they are judging God and rejecting Biblical morality and replacing it with human morality.
No, that is not the best case, because it depends on an a prori assumption that a god exists, and thus requires an explanation that it knows best - and even that rquires an assumption about the essential goodness of the being. The logically correct position would be to start from no assumption of a god, to consider the god claim of the Bible (since the God's morality debate only applies to Biblegod) and accept that case for it not being tenable is the sound explanation and would mean the Bibleclaim for a good God is untenable and That god does not exists. The claim that it is good in a way that we can't understand is merely an excuse and evasion and is Not the 'best' case.
Moreover, I say that the fact that you argue from an a priory god position adds conviction to the suspicion that you are Not an atheist. And We still wait for you to stop evading the matter and say on the thread that you do not believe in God.
The key premise is that our morality is derived from God. Even if it was derived from man, the sub premise is that it is better than God's (as described in the Bible). These premises have been made and that the Bible claim of a god god (let alone perfectly good) is untenable and refuted by the believers either trying to excuse God or brazening it out (he can do what he likes). That supports (not to say establishes) the premises.
Indeed the do, but they make laughing stocks of themselves and can no longer claim to be arguing rationally.
Please quote some atheist who 'acknowledge that the problem of evil argument is a failure'. I can find a shedload who consider that it is one of the biggest problems for the (Christian) God -claim.
its not a total failure. But its about as weak as a wet paper bag. The argument kind of reminds me of the boston massacre or the malmedy massacre. They were great rally cries but only the simple minded don't know what really happened.
there is no omni dude so the argument stops right there. If there is an omni dude the claim "it can do things that we consider bad because of what we don't know." is totally valid.
its actually a blind faith claim by some atheist. "there can't be suffering and love.". Observations show otherwise. The observation show that there can't be love without suffering. "Love" needs a reference point.
like trout pointed out, the snake is the hero of the story .. ands its part of god. if one believes that kind of thing.
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.
but they happen to be on the christian side of things. The very few real trolls I have seen here seem to dash in for a day or two and then are never seen again.
Do you really think if atheists found a flaw in an argument, they would still use it? What an obvious and embarrassing non sequitur from you.
