Originally posted by JimL
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
I - an atheist - am morally better than the Christian God
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Whateverman View PostYou appear to be arguing that evil (as thus our inevitable shortcomings) is necessary in order for God to show us mercy. The problem is that there's nothing in scripture or logic which says God needs to show mercy. He doesn't have to do that at all.
Even worse is that when you argue God must do X, Y or Z - you're arguing that God is subservient to something outside of Himself; a standard that God has no other option but to meet.
Originally posted by JimLAnd why for people should there be a need for reward?
Blessings,
Lee
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
This is your original argument, and Starlight has never heard of it? Fascinating, since this lazy "thought experiment" is something I remember from my days on tumblr, which were more than a decade ago now. Casual google searches reveal multiple atheists who seem to think they invented this "brilliant" bit of reasoning. It was trite on tumblr, and it still is today. Go declare your yourself the victor and proudly cash in your internet points.
Comment
-
Originally posted by LeaC View PostThis is your original argument, and Starlight has never heard of it? Fascinating, since this lazy "thought experiment" is something I remember from my days on tumblr, which were more than a decade ago now. Casual google searches reveal multiple atheists who seem to think they invented this "brilliant" bit of reasoning. It was trite on tumblr, and it still is today. Go declare your yourself the victor and proudly cash in your internet points.
Comment
-
Originally posted by LeaC View PostThis is your original argument, and Starlight has never heard of it?
Fascinating, since this lazy "thought experiment" is something I remember from my days on tumblr, which were more than a decade ago now.
Casual google searches reveal multiple atheists who seem to think they invented this "brilliant" bit of reasoning."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson View PostThe problem with theological exercises is that they have been thoroughly exhausted long before any of us were born. Brilliant theologians have mediated and been wrestling with some of these questions for 2,000 years or more. So although it is tempting to try to approach a subject from a new perspective, I'm pretty sure it has all been trodden before.
1. There are more people alive in the present day than have lived in the previous 2000 years combined (due to exponential growth in the world's population in recent years).
2. A far higher percentage of people in Western countries today are far more educated that people who lived previously typically were (due to increasing use of high school, college, and university education).
3. Scientific discoveries that have happened very recently impact theological arguments (in genetics, astronomy, psychology, anthropology, etc).
4. There is far greater tolerance for serious questioning of church teachings than ever before (no getting burned at the stake today for being a heretic).
5. There is tolerance of self-identified atheists expounding arguments for atheism in a way there typically hasn't been previously (even a few decades ago the social stigma was pretty strong against atheists).
6. Western countries in the 19th and 20th century learned a huge amount about politics and morality, from their own experiences, from science, from philosophers grappling with new ideas, and from anthropologists studying cultures worldwide as the explorers encountered new civilisations. Today we have a lot more information on our hands, in terms of understanding and contextualising all the different types of moral ideas and philosophies.
In the previous 2000 years there was a lot of scope for a random theologian to say something dumb, have the Church declare it Truth, and for their half-baked argument that wouldn't last one page on the internet today to be passed down to the faithful as the final word on the topic. Offhand I can't think of a single argument produced by any theologian in Church history that you could legitimately convince the majority of philosophy academics at Western universities today was actually a good argument. The quality of the work produced by historical Christian writers is very poor by today's standards in terms of logical quality. Due to vast improvements in education, science, and our understanding of logic, the arguments that get produced today are usually vastly more interesting than historical ones.
P.S. In thinking about this last standard of what theological arguments from history would be typically considered correct today in the average university context (and speaking as someone who did a philosophy degree in a university context), I would say there are only two I can think of off the top of my head:
a. Socrates' Euthyphro dilemma.
b. Hume's Is-Ought problem.
Both those arguments criticise ways in which Christians have commonly approached the topic of morality. I can't think of any other mainstream theological arguments from history that you could muster majority academic support today for the view that it's a good argument. As LeaC has helpfully reminded us all, however, it's true there are some arguments in the world that I haven't personally heard of.Last edited by Starlight; 07-26-2020, 10:36 PM."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostNot at all true as a general rule. There are quite a few reasons why new arguments are being made in our time that haven't been previously.
1. There are more people alive in the present day than have lived in the previous 2000 years combined (due to exponential growth in the world's population in recent years).
2. A far higher percentage of people in Western countries today are far more educated that people who lived previously typically were.
3. Scientific discoveries that have happened very recently impact theological arguments.
4. There is far greater tolerance for serious questioning of church teachings than ever before (no getting burned at the stake today for being a heretic).
5. There is tolerance of self-identified atheists expounding arguments for atheism in a way there typically hasn't been previously (even a few decades ago the social stigma was pretty strong against atheists).
6. Western countries in the 19th and 20th century learned a huge amount about politics and morality, from their own experiences, from science, from philosophers grappling with new ideas, and from anthropologists studying cultures worldwide as the explorers encountered new civilisations. Today we have a lot more information on our hands, in terms of understanding and contextualising all the different types of moral ideas and philosophies.
In the previous 2000 years there was a lot of scope for a random theologian to say something dumb, have the Church declare it Truth, and for their half-baked argument that wouldn't last one page on the internet today to be passed down to the faithful as the final word on the topic. Offhand I can't think of a single argument produced by any theologian in Church history that you could legitimately convince the majority of philosophy academics at Western universities today was actually a good argument. The quality of the work produced by historical Christian writers is very poor by today's standards in terms of logical quality. Due to vast improvements in education, science, and our understanding of logic, the arguments that get produced today are usually vastly more interesting than historical ones.
Comment
-
Originally posted by LeaC View PostThis is your original argument, and Starlight has never heard of it? Fascinating, since this lazy "thought experiment" is something I remember from my days on tumblr, which were more than a decade ago now. Casual google searches reveal multiple atheists who seem to think they invented this "brilliant" bit of reasoning. It was trite on tumblr, and it still is today. Go declare your yourself the victor and proudly cash in your internet points.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostCertainly, though by this logic, why should God do anything at all?
I'm not arguing that God must show mercy, it's out of his love and grace that he shows us mercy. Not out of some standard that he has to meet.
No, God wants to reward us, thus the need for something to overcome.
Blessings,
Lee
Blessings,
Lee
Paul then asks, who are we to to ask; "why then does god find fault?" Why is he angry with the evil doers?" For who can oppose his will." Seiously Lee? Do you think you are just a toy, a robot, determined by god to be one of the good guys, and that the bad guys are just toys as well, robots, determined to be the bad guys. If any of what Paul says there in Romans 9:14-24 is true, then his god, your god, is nothing but a child and we nothing but his wind-up toys. You're not good, not obedient, you have no agency, you're determined, determined to be gods wind-up toy for eternity. Pathetic. It's no wonder that Satan rebelled, he must have realized the evil nature of his boss. If it were an option, and according to Paul it isn't, I'd choose to go with Satan to his realm than to spend eternity with sociopathic child god in what you call heaven.Last edited by JimL; 07-26-2020, 10:48 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostGod wants to reward us, thus the need for something to overcome.
If He did, He'd be less powerful than the bible describes. Heck, He'd be less powerful than me, because when I want to reward someone, I don't need for them to have overcome some hardship.Last edited by Whateverman; 07-26-2020, 10:57 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson View PostQuantity doesn't equal quality.
IQ scores have been dropping since the 1970s.
What foundation does an atheist have to believe that "evil" exists?
In his other thread Whateverman gave his own technical definition of evil as "unnecessary suffering of conscious creatures", and followed it up with some examples of when he would/wouldn't title the suffering unnecessary. By his definition, and examples, it's pretty clear that evil as he defines it, exists.
Alternatively, we can grab one of the dictionary definitions of evil:
-"something which is harmful or undesirable." e.g. "the various social evils of our modern world"
Clearly there are things in the world that I would consider harmful or that I think are undesirable.
I'm confused that you seem to think this was some sort of gotcha. It's about as hard as "What's 1 plus 1? Checkmate atheists!""I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Whateverman View PostThis is a simple value judgement (yours) which bypasses the argument. If you feel that way, fine, but it doesn't in any way address the thread's topic.
I mean - I'm not arguing from my own opinions. I don't think thread Christian God exists at all. Here, I'm assuming He does, and that He is accurately described by Christians and the bible. My argument is predicated on the Christian world view, and I'm not giving voice to my own. I can't, because to do so stops conversation.
So there's that, it's opinion vs opinion, and you have given no compelling reason to accept your opinion over the alternative I presented. Ergo I can ignore your argument, since it does not move the needle either way.
Uncharitably: You're just hand-waving rather than engaging with the response.
Originally posted by WhatevermanCreatures that never existed never had free will which could be interfered with.
I think you have misunderstood - the creatures whose free will is interfered with in your model are those who, once created, choose freely to have children - where those children themselves would choose evil. The potential parents. They try to have children, but some mysterious thing (Whatevermangod) prevents them from doing so. Since there is no evil in this world, it can't be that they have infertility issues, or miscarry, or have an illness that prevents them from becoming parents - it's only that Whatevermangod sees that the potential child would be evil, and stops it from being born.
IOW you've created a world where the rules of nature act inconsistently (sometimes people can have children, sometimes they can't)....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
The logical problem of evil was solved years ago.Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostGod simply has a good reason for allowing evil temporarily.
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostAll of human existence in a fallen world is like a bad dream compared to the eternity in a new Universe for His adopted children. Strangers not allowed. Wild goats can fend for themselves."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Sparko, 06-25-2024, 03:03 PM
|
37 responses
184 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:12 AM | ||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-20-2024, 10:04 AM
|
27 responses
146 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
06-27-2024, 01:35 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 06-18-2024, 08:18 AM
|
82 responses
477 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 03:48 AM | ||
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
156 responses
637 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 06:38 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,140 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM |
Comment