Why do sceptics and atheists post on this and other (woman, purpose)
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.
For the reasons already explained: The morality given us - which by all reason ought to be a morality that a god uses
I see no reason, actually, to think that the rules given to us should apply to god as well. If in light of no other distinction than our limited knowledge compared to his infinite knowledge. Decisions we make cannot be certain as to their consequences, while those of an omniscient god's obviously would.
Quote:
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.
I do think Universalism is more plausible (assuming Christian theism) for moral, logical and even biblical reasons. So I can grant this point just fine.
Quote:
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.
I've heard both. But all this shows is that we interpret actions our own ways; it doesn't show that god allowing/causing x is wrong to do so.
Quote:
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
If we're now switching over to arguing whether or not god exists, that's a whole other question. What we were discussing was the problem of evil argument, which says that there is an internal contradiction/inconsistency between belief in an all-loving, all-powerful god, and the existence of evil.
Quote:
The logically correct position would be to start from no assumption of a god,
Unless of course you think you have good reason to believe that god exists (as most Christians believe) and then along comes an anti-theist with this problem of evil argument resting on an unsupported premise.
Quote:
Moreover, I say that the fact that you argue from an a priory god position
I do not. But I do recognize that the problem of evil argument is a claim of inconsistencies that aren't necessarily there.
Quote:
And We still wait for you to stop evading the matter and say on the thread that you do not believe in God.
And I remind you that I have
And so, it remains the case that the anti-theist has all of his work ahead of him. You can't just assert that if god allows evil/suffering then he must be evil, malevolent, etc. and can't have good reasons for it. That needs to be substantiated. And until one of you (any of you) can do this, the problem of evil argument is still a failure.
Why do YOUR a priori assumptions NOT need to be justified?
What a priori assumptions are these, Mystic? That a god claim needs to be proven and a reservation of beleif, doesn't? (apart from saying why the case doesn't convince). That reality/the material universe has an a priori valid assumption that it is real? "How do you know" questions don't make a case that reality isn't real, even aside that I cave a case for reality - it is repeatable, and thus reliable, and thus we can trust it. But also surprises us all the time, so we are not imagining it.
Just what are we assuming that isn't valid and reasonable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
That's the one-sided nature of extremists.
You couldn't wait to go for the atheist throat without waiting to see what the response was. As usual, your bias will come back to bite you in the ass when I show that our position is logically sound and the closed -mindedness and 'extremism' is on your side - with this resentment and prejudice about there mere name 'atheism'.
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.
You are making no coherent or valid case. You are just throwing rotten eggs. Don't waste our time.
But of course the main point is simply that there's no reason to think an atheist can't defend theism in the first place. That's unless you want to agree with certain Christians who've contended that atheism is a religion and so perhaps one of our doctrines is "Thou shalt oppose religion and never defend it"
I see no reason, actually, to think that the rules given to us should apply to god as well. If in light of no other distinction than our limited knowledge compared to his infinite knowledge. Decisions we make cannot be certain as to their consequences, while those of an omniscient god's obviously would.
I do think Universalism is more plausible (assuming Christian theism) for moral, logical and even biblical reasons. So I can grant this point just fine.
I've heard both. But all this shows is that we interpret actions our own ways; it doesn't show that god allowing/causing x is wrong to do so.
If you think about it, it is a problem. Indeed an aspect of the problem, and the only problem. A morality given us by God but not a morality shared by God. Is our morality not morality? Is His morality not morality? Some (those who tough it out and say that God can do as he likes, seem to see that). The excuse that God knows what he is doing is at best an excuse without any explanation, but a world full of pointless evil raises the question of why a god doesn't do anything undeniable that would look moral to us. This raises the supicion that a god ain't there at all or at least that the 'Good' god of the Bible (who isn't good at all) cannot be real
Which refutes your argument below
Quote:
If we're now switching over to arguing whether or not god exists, that's a whole other question. What we were discussing was the problem of evil argument, which says that there is an internal contradiction/inconsistency between belief in an all-loving, all-powerful god, and the existence of evil.
Unless of course you think you have good reason to believe that god exists (as most Christians believe) and then along comes an anti-theist with this problem of evil argument resting on an unsupported premise.
No, as i pointed out it is the same argument - the argument is NOT that a god is evil, but that it doesn't exist. The possibility of a god that is there but does nothing is just a possibility, but the argument is that the problem of evil makes the god of the Bible untenable and indeed the claim of a good and just intervening god that does not intervene in any good and just way makes the Christian god -claim untenable.
Quote:
I do not. But I do recognize that the problem of evil argument is a claim of inconsistencies that aren't necessarily there.
They are there
Quote:
And I remind you that I have
And I remind you that you have not. If you have please give a link.
And so, it remains the case that the anti-theist has all of his work ahead of him. You can't just assert that if god allows evil/suffering then he must be evil, malevolent, etc. and can't have good reasons for it. That needs to be substantiated. And until one of you (any of you) can do this, the problem of evil argument is still a failure.[/quote]
No, you have (like a good theist) mistaken the case. It is Not that God is evil (though that is a possibility) but that a god that is plainly not what it is claimed to be cannot be considered to exist.
Quite apart from the atrocities in the OT, the whole vileness of the Bible claim - saved to heaven or damned to eternal torment just because of believing what has no valid reason to be believed is evil enough. You think it is good because you are counting on being one of the saved? I have read plenty of stories by former Christians who were terrified that they weren't doing enough to be saved. What just god would do that to his own never mind others? What about all these evils that people have to excuse by "He's testing us"?
Even without the horrors of the OT, it stinks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Point out the post...or say it again.
Yep. He could settle this right now..but he continues to evade. And the more he does (and the more he argues like a theist) the more we doubt.
But of course the main point is simply that there's no reason to think an atheist can't defend theism in the first place. That's unless you want to agree with certain Christians who've contended that atheism is a religion and so perhaps one of our doctrines is "Thou shalt oppose religion and never defend it"
That wasn't what we asked you to say which was "I do not believe in any god". All Christians are atheists and do not believe in a god. They do not believe in a lot of gods...except one.
A morality given us by God but not a morality shared by God. Is our morality not morality? Is His morality not morality?
Well belief in objective morality is simply the belief that some things are truly, objectively wrong. It doesn't mean that those things are always wrong, however. That's absolutism which is a different topic. And so no, there isn't a problem in saying that something might be wrong for us to do but not wrong for god.
Quote:
The excuse that God knows what he is doing is at best an excuse without any explanation,
What "explanation" do you need, to show that an all-knowing being would know the consequences of his actions better than a person with finite knowledge?
Quote:
but a world full of pointless evil
That's the first assumption, of course, that the anti-theist needs to justify. How did they/you determine that there is any truly pointless evil?
Quote:
raises the question of why a god doesn't do anything undeniable that would look moral to us.
And it's fine to ask the question, but it's another thing to imply that god definitely should make it obvious that what he does/allows is moral. Suppose that our not knowing this is also allowed for the sake of some overriding good. How did they/you determine that's not the case?
Quote:
No, as i pointed out it is the same argument - the argument is NOT that a god is evil, but that it doesn't exist.
Due to alleged inconsistencies within this group of doctrines, though. The argument starts with looking at what god is supposed to be, and then asking what can/can't be reconciled regarding that.
Quote:
Quite apart from the atrocities in the OT,
Which you would, again, need to do more than just claim are atrocities (if you mean that god should not have committed/allowed them).
Quote:
the whole vileness of the Bible claim - saved to heaven or damned to eternal torment just because of believing what has no valid reason to be believed is evil enough.
There are versions of the hell doctrine which do not conceptualize "being damned" as an act of god, but I do agree that this doesn't seem consistent with an all-knowing, all-loving god. And so again if I were a Christian I'd subscribe to Universalism. And not just for these reasons but out of biblical considerations as well.
Quote:
You think it is good because you are counting on being one of the saved?
Are you suggesting that atheists believe in the salvation of our souls? Because I would call into question if you're really an atheist if that's what you are in fact suggesting...
Quote:
I have read plenty of stories by former Christians who were terrified that they weren't doing enough to be saved. What just god would do that to his own never mind others?
Well again, that's just a question you're asking. But the key, hidden premise is obviously "God couldn't be justified in allowing this", and you need to substantiate it already!
What a priori assumptions are these, Mystic? That a god claim needs to be proven and a reservation of belief, doesn't? (apart from saying why the case doesn't convince).
That you cannot even recognize your own a priori assumptions speaks volumes about your philosophical naivete'. You call my belief that "there IS a God" a "claim" and then downplay your belief that "there is NO God" as the "default" by some unknown but supposedly authoritative fiat. You really do not seem intellectually suited for this kind of discourse.
That you cannot even recognize your own a priori assumptions speaks volumes about your philosophical naivete'. You call my belief that "there IS a God" a "claim" and then downplay your belief that "there is NO God" as the "default" by some unknown but supposedly authoritative fiat. You really do not seem intellectually suited for this kind of discourse.
We have done this before so many times. IF we made a claim that there was no god and we knew this for certain, it would be an a priori claim that we would have to justify, and we can't - no more than the theist can justify the god -claim. So If we made that claim we would have to modify it to the logical position that atheism actually holds. "We do not accept the claim that a god exists". You have been told this countless times, but you simply do not listen and keep forcing a position that we do not hold upon us in a futile attempt to make a case. Even if we were making an a priori claim as invalid as yours, it wouldn't do a single damn' thing to validate the god -claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Well belief in objective morality is simply the belief that some things are truly, objectively wrong. It doesn't mean that those things are always wrong, however. That's absolutism which is a different topic. And so no, there isn't a problem in saying that something might be wrong for us to do but not wrong for god.
No - that is the Theistic view of morality. The objective basis, such as it is, is the acceptance that human well being is desirable, and morality is what choices facilitate human well -being. And there is a problem in claiming that a morality given to humans in not a morality that applies to God. No explanation of this, just an excuse.
Quote:
What "explanation" do you need, to show that an all-knowing being would know the consequences of his actions better than a person with finite knowledge?
Some explanation other than just inflicting evil that is at all odds with the morality given to us, and no reason why other than 'it makes sense to God'. This is an abrogation of all reason in favour of blind faith that God knows what's best. But you can know it isn't good enough as some opt for toughing it out: "God can do what he likes". These types of theists refute your position.
Quote:
That's the first assumption, of course, that the anti-theist needs to justify. How did they/you determine that there is any truly pointless evil?
Aside that you forcing a claim of absolute knowledge on us, what seems compellingly like pointless evil, rapes, famines, tsunamis, massacres, and a thousand more shouts that no god is doing anything about this and we are on our own. The only excuse you can come up with is that this all has some purpose but you can't explain what.
Quote:
And it's fine to ask the question, but it's another thing to imply that god definitely should make it obvious that what he does/allows is moral. Suppose that our not knowing this is also allowed for the sake of some overriding good. How did they/you determine that's not the case?
No more than we can know for sure that there is no god. But all the weight of evidence points away from that, just as this god does not seem to have any time for the morality dished out to us - and then revised as soon as the religion passed from the Jews to the Greeks. The way the world works does not look moral, the Bible does not look moral, the burden of proof is upon the theist to tell us why what looks untenable is believable, and the best you can do is "It all makes sense, just have Faith". Not good enough.
Quote:
Due to alleged inconsistencies within this group of doctrines, though. The argument starts with looking at what god is supposed to be, and then asking what can/can't be reconciled regarding that.
How about "God is supposed to be Good (never mind perfect) and obviously is not.
Quote:
Which you would, again, need to do more than just claim are atrocities (if you mean that god should not have committed/allowed them).
You are not aware of the massacred not only permitted by God but ordered by Him? The stitch -up of the Eden scenario, the viciousness and absurdity of the Flood...ah but you probably discard these as 'metaphor'. Very well, the buying and selling of foreigners and womes as propery..ah but that was what men did, not God, and God was somehow hamstrung for pointing out that this was wrong, while making a great fuss anout how you wove your clothes or cut your hair? You still want to say that this all makes sense to God, even if it makes no sense to us?
Quote:
There are versions of the hell doctrine which do not conceptualize "being damned" as an act of god, but I do agree that this doesn't seem consistent with an all-knowing, all-loving god. And so again if I were a Christian I'd subscribe to Universalism. And not just for these reasons but out of biblical considerations as well.
Quite. Even christians labour under the problem of evil and have to simply dicard some of the Evil, so they can continue to believe.
Quote:
Are you suggesting that atheists believe in the salvation of our souls? Because I would call into question if you're really an atheist if that's what you are in fact suggesting...
Of course not. But I'm suggesting that Christians (and I am still to be convinced that you are not one) do believe, and some can shrug off the desperate evils of Christianity because they think They're ok. But a good few doubt that they have made the cut, and are in terror.
Quote:
Well again, that's just a question you're asking. But the key, hidden premise is obviously "God couldn't be justified in allowing this", and you need to substantiate it already!
And it's a question that you're sidestepping with 'it makes sense to God'; an Excuse. Not a reason. And the persistence of the problem of evil (despite apologists claiming that it has gone away - it is stronger a cause of doubt and deconversion than most others - according to deconversion stories) and that Christians have to revide the dogma toi get around it, or pretend that the Bible doesn't say what it does say is substantiating the claim enough without me having to do a darn thing.
folks....there is a neat little talk explaining the problem of evil, why it is a real problem, and the various Explanations (Theodicies) that apologists come up with to rationalise it.
As the talker says, these do not 'cut it', and the problem remains. It is a top reason for people doubting and losing Faith.
Vic here takes the easy way out 'Just have faith' (that it makes sense).
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-04-2019 at 03:01 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.
As usual, your bias will come back to bite you in the ass when I show that our position is logically sound and the closed -mindedness and 'extremism' is on your side - with this resentment and prejudice about there mere name 'atheism'.
