Total Posts:112|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The "God Does Not Exist" Stance

RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 12:16:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

There is no evidence any deity exists. The one featured in the Bible is really nasty if the deeds attributed to it had any validity!
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 1:12:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

It doesn't matter how often you are told you will never understand what atheism is, that's because understanding reality will send you to hell according to your fantasy beliefs.
What a horrible way to live, you have my pity.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 1:22:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I had to guess, I'd guess Rod is talking about my thread regarding a one-year-old baby girl and her parents being killed in a car accident due to a texting crankhead driving with a suspended license. What Rod fails to grasp, as do many Christian theists, the argument is that if God is the definition of Good, how could God let bad things happen. It's attempt to get people to look logically at their beliefs. It usually fails because the vociferous defense of God's goodness always obscures the actual purpose. Rod still doesn't seem to understand though I was quite specific about it in one post. It doesn't really matter because believers will always come up with an excuse for why their omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity could not or simply did not prevent unnecessary pain or death.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 2:49:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Dear omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God, I know that you allowed over a quarter million innocent people to die needlessly the day after your sons birthday from a tsunami that you easily could have stopped, but you found my car keys. You are a loving God. I will worship and praise you forever. I am blessed.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 3:53:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

No atheist should say that god does not exist because we simply do not know. Nobody does. There is no debating that fact. The believer thinks god exists. This is an opinion with no evidence in support of it. I do not worry if there is a creator and I am certainly not frustrated by the idea of one, I don't really care for it. What annoys me is how religious people use it to harm others.
To believe is to know nothing.
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:02:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 3:53:22 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

No atheist should say that god does not exist because we simply do not know. Nobody does. : :

This is an untrue statement.

There is no debating that fact. The believer thinks god exists. This is an opinion with no evidence in support of it. I do not worry if there is a creator and I am certainly not frustrated by the idea of one, I don't really care for it. What annoys me is how religious people use it to harm others.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:04:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 4:02:23 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:22 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

No atheist should say that god does not exist because we simply do not know. Nobody does. : :

This is an untrue statement.

I welcome an explanation as to why you think this. I'm on the edge of my seat.


There is no debating that fact. The believer thinks god exists. This is an opinion with no evidence in support of it. I do not worry if there is a creator and I am certainly not frustrated by the idea of one, I don't really care for it. What annoys me is how religious people use it to harm others.
To believe is to know nothing.
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:16:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 4:04:43 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:02:23 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:22 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

No atheist should say that god does not exist because we simply do not know. Nobody does. : :

This is an untrue statement.

I welcome an explanation as to why you think this. I'm on the edge of my seat.

The untrue statement was, "Nobody does".

I have known God for many years. He was the one who taught me everything he wanted me to know before my body dies.

God has revealed himself to many people called prophets and saints by directly speaking into their minds. Once God gets them to trust him, then he uses the prophets and saints to write and speak for him. This is how God teaches us about his plans for the future.

God also reveals himself to people called believers in indirect ways that we call miracles. These are experiences that can't be explained by believers other than God must have caused them. These believers are put in the path of God's saints who preach the gospel to them. The gospel is the voice of God where all his knowledge flows into a believer's mind as long as the believer is open minded enough to hear it.

The believers you're referring to are religious people who have no clue who God is. They practice traditions and teach each other religious dogma that keeps them from listening to the voice of God. When they hear his voice in the gospel, they reject him. : :

There is no debating that fact. The believer thinks god exists. This is an opinion with no evidence in support of it. I do not worry if there is a creator and I am certainly not frustrated by the idea of one, I don't really care for it. What annoys me is how religious people use it to harm others. : :
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:29:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 4:16:15 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:04:43 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:02:23 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:22 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

No atheist should say that god does not exist because we simply do not know. Nobody does. : :

This is an untrue statement.

I welcome an explanation as to why you think this. I'm on the edge of my seat.

The untrue statement was, "Nobody does".

I have known God for many years. He was the one who taught me everything he wanted me to know before my body dies.

You know he exists? That would make it a fact that science can test and prove. How are you getting on with all that?


God has revealed himself to many people called prophets and saints by directly speaking into their minds. Once God gets them to trust him, then he uses the prophets and saints to write and speak for him. This is how God teaches us about his plans for the future.

So is this where you try and offer me some proof? Anecdotes aren't proof, sorry.


God also reveals himself to people called believers in indirect ways that we call miracles. These are experiences that can't be explained by believers other than God must have caused them. These believers are put in the path of God's saints who preach the gospel to them. The gospel is the voice of God where all his knowledge flows into a believer's mind as long as the believer is open minded enough to hear it.

This isn't proof either.


The believers you're referring to are religious people who have no clue who God is. They practice traditions and teach each other religious dogma that keeps them from listening to the voice of God. When they hear his voice in the gospel, they reject him. : :

I don't waste my time with intra-religious problems, nor is it relevant to this debate.


There is no debating that fact. The believer thinks god exists. This is an opinion with no evidence in support of it. I do not worry if there is a creator and I am certainly not frustrated by the idea of one, I don't really care for it. What annoys me is how religious people use it to harm others. : :
To believe is to know nothing.
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:35:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 4:29:34 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:16:15 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:04:43 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:02:23 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:22 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

No atheist should say that god does not exist because we simply do not know. Nobody does. : :

This is an untrue statement.

I welcome an explanation as to why you think this. I'm on the edge of my seat.

The untrue statement was, "Nobody does".

I have known God for many years. He was the one who taught me everything he wanted me to know before my body dies.

You know he exists? That would make it a fact that science can test and prove. How are you getting on with all that?

I get along fine with those who were designed to listen to his voice. Most scientists and religious people don't hear his voice so they don't have any evidence that he exists.

God has revealed himself to many people called prophets and saints by directly speaking into their minds. Once God gets them to trust him, then he uses the prophets and saints to write and speak for him. This is how God teaches us about his plans for the future.

So is this where you try and offer me some proof? Anecdotes aren't proof, sorry.

Why would God need proof that he exists?


God also reveals himself to people called believers in indirect ways that we call miracles. These are experiences that can't be explained by believers other than God must have caused them. These believers are put in the path of God's saints who preach the gospel to them. The gospel is the voice of God where all his knowledge flows into a believer's mind as long as the believer is open minded enough to hear it.

This isn't proof either.

I know it's not and I don't care if you hear his voice or not. In the next age, you will hear his voice.

The believers you're referring to are religious people who have no clue who God is. They practice traditions and teach each other religious dogma that keeps them from listening to the voice of God. When they hear his voice in the gospel, they reject him. : :

I don't waste my time with intra-religious problems, nor is it relevant to this debate.

Why are you communicating with me, then?

There is no debating that fact. The believer thinks god exists. This is an opinion with no evidence in support of it. I do not worry if there is a creator and I am certainly not frustrated by the idea of one, I don't really care for it. What annoys me is how religious people use it to harm others. : :
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:44:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

That depends. If atheists are atheists for the so called "problem of evil", then your "insult" hypothesis might be right. If atheists are atheists because they understand fancy tales are never true, then their stance probably implies a firm belief in non existence (or lack of belief). I'm of the latter category, so in my particular case, it is a firm belief in non-existence, but I have no problem in admiting I consider God a villain, but pointing out I also consider him a fictitious literary character.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:49:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 4:35:59 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:29:34 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:16:15 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:04:43 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:02:23 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:22 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

No atheist should say that god does not exist because we simply do not know. Nobody does. : :

This is an untrue statement.

I welcome an explanation as to why you think this. I'm on the edge of my seat.

The untrue statement was, "Nobody does".

I have known God for many years. He was the one who taught me everything he wanted me to know before my body dies.

You know he exists? That would make it a fact that science can test and prove. How are you getting on with all that?

I get along fine with those who were designed to listen to his voice. Most scientists and religious people don't hear his voice so they don't have any evidence that he exists.

So you mean he speaks to you in your head and that in itself is evidence? I'm amazed you think that is remotely sufficient to know something so extraordinary.


God has revealed himself to many people called prophets and saints by directly speaking into their minds. Once God gets them to trust him, then he uses the prophets and saints to write and speak for him. This is how God teaches us about his plans for the future.

So is this where you try and offer me some proof? Anecdotes aren't proof, sorry.

Why would God need proof that he exists?

I'm asking YOU for proof to support YOUR claim.



God also reveals himself to people called believers in indirect ways that we call miracles. These are experiences that can't be explained by believers other than God must have caused them. These believers are put in the path of God's saints who preach the gospel to them. The gospel is the voice of God where all his knowledge flows into a believer's mind as long as the believer is open minded enough to hear it.

This isn't proof either.

I know it's not and I don't care if you hear his voice or not. In the next age, you will hear his voice.

I don't have voices speaking to me in my head and if that happened to me I'd be deeply concerned.


The believers you're referring to are religious people who have no clue who God is. They practice traditions and teach each other religious dogma that keeps them from listening to the voice of God. When they hear his voice in the gospel, they reject him. : :

I don't waste my time with intra-religious problems, nor is it relevant to this debate.

Why are you communicating with me, then?

Because I find it fascinating that someone can claim to KNOW their version of a god exists. I'm not religious so this debate isn't intra-religious. It's about you trying to justify to the world that your claim has weight and so far it has none whatsoever.


There is no debating that fact. The believer thinks god exists. This is an opinion with no evidence in support of it. I do not worry if there is a creator and I am certainly not frustrated by the idea of one, I don't really care for it. What annoys me is how religious people use it to harm others. : :
To believe is to know nothing.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:54:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 1:22:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
If I had to guess, I'd guess Rod is talking about my thread regarding a one-year-old baby girl and her parents being killed in a car accident due to a texting crankhead driving with a suspended license. What Rod fails to grasp, as do many Christian theists, the argument is that if God is the definition of Good, how could God let bad things happen. It's attempt to get people to look logically at their beliefs. It usually fails because the vociferous defense of God's goodness always obscures the actual purpose. Rod still doesn't seem to understand though I was quite specific about it in one post. It doesn't really matter because believers will always come up with an excuse for why their omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity could not or simply did not prevent unnecessary pain or death.

Hey man I don't think I have spoken to you before but I would like to have a chance to respond to your post and hopefully it will be at least thought provoking and you can critique my response.

I think there are two main ideas I want to propose. The first is that the question presupposes moral evil actually exists, which, I believe, is a strong argument for theism in the first place.

As philosophizer Alvin Plantinga says, "could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness if naturalism were true? I don"t see how. A naturalistic way of looking at the world, so it seems to me, has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort; a fortiori [all the more], then, it has no place for such a category as horrifying wickedness. . . . [The problem is one of understanding] how, in a naturalistic universe, there could be such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. There can be such a thing only if there is a way rational creatures are supposed to live, obliged to live; and the force of that normativity"its strength, so to speak"is such that the appalling and horrifying nature of genuine wickedness is its inverse. But naturalism cannot make room for that kind of normativity; that requires a lawgiver, one whose very nature it is to abhor wickedness. Naturalism can perhaps accommodate foolishness and irrationality, acting contrary to what are or what you take to be your own interests; it can"t accommodate appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness (that our sense that there is, is not a mere illusion of some sort), and if you also think that the main options are theism and naturalism, then you have a powerful theistic argument from evil."

As Paul Copan points out "The atheist assumes that (a) a good being eliminates evil insofar as he can and that (b) there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. But why should the theist accept (a) or (b)? However, the logical argument from evil doesn"t properly factor in human freedom or God"s underlying reasons or overarching purposes."

Atheist philosopher William Rowe: "Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim."

As Alvin Plantinga has written: "it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil. And if so, then it is possible that God has a good reason for creating a world containing evil."

I know this is mostly just quotes, but I think they capture well the heart of the argument that evil and the Christian God cannot co-exist.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:55:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

There is no reason to assume a non personal creator can 'read thoughts', but that is a specific claim made by those who advocate a personal god. You're getting your definitions of "God" confused.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

"Belief in non-existence" and "lack of belief" are not equivalent. Lack of belief describes my position on a deistic god (no belief for or against). Belief in non-existence describes my position on a personal god (I believe no such thing exists). Hopefully that helps.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 5:18:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 4:54:20 PM, stubs wrote:
At 9/14/2015 1:22:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
If I had to guess, I'd guess Rod is talking about my thread regarding a one-year-old baby girl and her parents being killed in a car accident due to a texting crankhead driving with a suspended license. What Rod fails to grasp, as do many Christian theists, the argument is that if God is the definition of Good, how could God let bad things happen. It's attempt to get people to look logically at their beliefs. It usually fails because the vociferous defense of God's goodness always obscures the actual purpose. Rod still doesn't seem to understand though I was quite specific about it in one post. It doesn't really matter because believers will always come up with an excuse for why their omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity could not or simply did not prevent unnecessary pain or death.

Hey man I don't think I have spoken to you before but I would like to have a chance to respond to your post and hopefully it will be at least thought provoking and you can critique my response.

I think there are two main ideas I want to propose. The first is that the question presupposes moral evil actually exists, which, I believe, is a strong argument for theism in the first place.

I am forced to disagree. Evil is that which damages the well being of the species. Our survival instincts have been refined by knowledge and empathy and we have identified evil in that fashion. That is why crimes against a child are considered so heinous, since children are the foundation of our species' survival. That's a broad generalization, of course, but I think an examination of the moral systems of the ancients compared with our current morality will bear it out.

As philosophizer Alvin Plantinga says, "could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness if naturalism were true?

Of course. That's what empathy provides, the means to understand another and share in both their pain and their joy. We are horrified because we understand to some extend the horror that the victim(s) went through.

I don"t see how.

Explained above.

A naturalistic way of looking at the world, so it seems to me, has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort; a fortiori [all the more], then, it has no place for such a category as horrifying wickedness.

Again, already explained. Man is one of the few animals that kills without real purpose, either to defend or for food. It is the two-edged sword of sentience that both lifts man up and also lets him descend. It's a path each person chooses.

[The problem is one of understanding] how, in a naturalistic universe, there could be such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. There can be such a thing only if there is a way rational creatures are supposed to live, obliged to live; and the force of that normativity"its strength, so to speak"is such that the appalling and horrifying nature of genuine wickedness is its inverse. But naturalism cannot make room for that kind of normativity; that requires a lawgiver, one whose very nature it is to abhor wickedness.

That is an assertion you cannot demonstrate. The presence of your so-called lawgiver has not prevented people from killing, stealing, and innumerable other things that improve their well-being at the expense of others. I point out the pedophilia running rampant and protected by the Catholic Church as an example.

Naturalism can perhaps accommodate foolishness and irrationality, acting contrary to what are or what you take to be your own interests; it can"t accommodate appalling wickedness.

It can and it does.

Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness (that our sense that there is, is not a mere illusion of some sort), and if you also think that the main options are theism and naturalism, then you have a powerful theistic argument from evil."

Again an assertion you cannot demonstrate since you cannot demonstrate the actual presence of your source of morality.

As Paul Copan points out "The atheist assumes that (a) a good being eliminates evil insofar as he can and that (b) there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. But why should the theist accept (a)

Because a good person recognizes that evil damages the species. It's survival to remove it and we have codified that into our laws. If you don't accept (a) then you are more indifferent to evil than any non-believer.

or (b)? The definition of omnipotent. All powerful, able to do anything at any time, anywhere. God is also defined as omniscient (All knowing), omnipresent (Always there) and omnibenevolent (Always good). If he fails in any of those then he is not the god so defined.

However, the logical argument from evil doesn"t properly factor in human freedom or

Free will is not part of this discussion.

God"s underlying reasons or overarching purposes."

How can you or anyone else claim to know that there is any such plan and that it will be ultimately beneficial to everyone? That's a bare assertion that no one, I repeat, no one can support.

Atheist philosopher William Rowe: "Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim."

Good for him. That's his view, not mine.

As Alvin Plantinga has written: "it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil. And if so, then it is possible that God has a good reason for creating a world containing evil."

Anything can be posited as possible but that does not alter what is. How can the supposed source of your morality, your sense of good and evil, your sense of right and wrong, knowing create immoral, evil, wrong things and beings?

I know this is mostly just quotes, but I think they capture well the heart of the argument that evil and the Christian God cannot co-exist.

I think it tries to avoid it by simply denying its possibility. It demands that a listener accept assertions that cannot be evidenced in any way in order to reach a conclusion. In short, it is just a rationalization based on supposition and nothing more.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 5:53:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 4:54:20 PM, stubs wrote:
At 9/14/2015 1:22:29 PM, dhardage wrote:

I think there are two main ideas I want to propose. The first is that the question presupposes moral evil actually exists, which, I believe, is a strong argument for theism in the first place.

I am forced to disagree. Evil is that which damages the well being of the species.

By your definition fast food would be evil. Fast food certainly damages the well being of the species. Would you agree with that?

Our survival instincts have been refined by knowledge and empathy and we have identified evil in that fashion. That is why crimes against a child are considered so heinous, since children are the foundation of our species' survival. That's a broad generalization, of course, but I think an examination of the moral systems of the ancients compared with our current morality will bear it out.

So in your last statement you concluded that evil is (your definition). And it was presented as an objective definition of evil. Here you have compared two sets of morality which would not be considered objective. Which is it?

As philosophizer Alvin Plantinga says, "could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness if naturalism were true?

Of course. That's what empathy provides, the means to understand another and share in both their pain and their joy.

Having empathy with someone does not mean that objective horrifying wickedness could possibly exist if naturalism were true. You actually describe this when you say

We are horrified because we understand to some extend the horror that the victim(s) went through.

All this means is that we understand a tragic event someone went through. Not that an objective act of wickedness actually occurred.

A naturalistic way of looking at the world, so it seems to me, has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort; a fortiori [all the more], then, it has no place for such a category as horrifying wickedness.

Again, already explained. Man is one of the few animals that kills without real purpose, either to defend or for food. It is the two-edged sword of sentience that both lifts man up and also lets him descend. It's a path each person chooses.

This does not show how naturalism can account for wickedness. It simply shows that man kills without purpose.

[The problem is one of understanding] how, in a naturalistic universe, there could be such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. There can be such a thing only if there is a way rational creatures are supposed to live, obliged to live; and the force of that normativity"its strength, so to speak"is such that the appalling and horrifying nature of genuine wickedness is its inverse. But naturalism cannot make room for that kind of normativity; that requires a lawgiver, one whose very nature it is to abhor wickedness.

That is an assertion you cannot demonstrate. The presence of your so-called lawgiver has not prevented people from killing, stealing, and innumerable other things that improve their well-being at the expense of others. I point out the pedophilia running rampant and protected by the Catholic Church as an example.

I argue he does not necessarily have to in order to be good as presented in arguments below.

Naturalism can perhaps accommodate foolishness and irrationality, acting contrary to what are or what you take to be your own interests; it can"t accommodate appalling wickedness.

It can and it does.

Great, provide arguments for your claim.

Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness (that our sense that there is, is not a mere illusion of some sort), and if you also think that the main options are theism and naturalism, then you have a powerful theistic argument from evil."

Again an assertion you cannot demonstrate since you cannot demonstrate the actual presence of your source of morality.

You did not ask me to present evidence for that. I was arguing that objective evil and wickedness cannot be presented by a naturalistic world view.

As Paul Copan points out "The atheist assumes that (a) a good being eliminates evil insofar as he can and that (b) there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. But why should the theist accept (a)

Because a good person recognizes that evil damages the species. It's survival to remove it and we have codified that into our laws. If you don't accept (a) then you are more indifferent to evil than any non-believer.

No one is arguing we should not try to remove evil. The argument is whether or not God necessarily must eliminate all the evil he possibly can. The last part is argumentum ad hominem.

or (b)? The definition of omnipotent. All powerful, able to do anything at any time, anywhere. God is also defined as omniscient (All knowing), omnipresent (Always there) and omnibenevolent (Always good). If he fails in any of those then he is not the god so defined.

I define God as the God present in the Judeo-Christian bible, but your definition of terms seems to be arguing for some other being. Maybe it was a waste of time after all haha.

However, the logical argument from evil doesn"t properly factor in human freedom or

Free will is not part of this discussion.

Why? Because it doesn't support your argument. That is one debating technique.

As Alvin Plantinga has written: "it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil. And if so, then it is possible that God has a good reason for creating a world containing evil."

Anything can be posited as possible but that does not alter what is. How can the supposed source of your morality, your sense of good and evil, your sense of right and wrong, knowing create immoral, evil, wrong things and beings?

You saying anything can be posited as possible actually proves my point. If it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing more moral goodness without creating one that also contained more evil than it stands that evil and the Judeo-Christian God are compatible. For the last part I would bring up free will but apparently that's not allowed because it doesn't support your argument.

I know this is mostly just quotes, but I think they capture well the heart of the argument that evil and the Christian God cannot co-exist.

I think it tries to avoid it by simply denying its possibility. It demands that a listener accept assertions that cannot be evidenced in any way in order to reach a conclusion. In short, it is just a rationalization based on supposition and nothing more.

In conclusion, there are a few main points to this discussion:

The first is whether objective evil and horrifying events could arise from naturalism. You say that it could because this is why we feel empathy for each other. Feeling empathy has nothing to do with objective evil being produced from naturalism.

The second point is whether the Judeo-Christian God is compatible with evil. My two arguments for this were that it is possible God could not have created a world with more good in it without also being more evil. You actually agreed with this statement which I showed above. My second argument was that God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, such as free will, but you decided we could not talk about that.

To summarize you have not provided a basis for naturalism explaining evil and wickedness, and you have not been able to show that God and evil are incompatible.

Thanks for your time. Have a good day.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 5:58:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

You are implying atheists secretly believe in God. I really doubt this. When I was an atheist, I was a true atheist. In fact, I rarely thought about God or religion at all.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 6:09:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 5:53:26 PM, stubs wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:54:20 PM, stubs wrote:

I am forced to disagree. Evil is that which damages the well being of the species.

There's a difference in harming yourself and harming others. Hence, bad habit

By your definition fast food would be evil. Fast food certainly damages the well being of the species. Would you agree with that?

Our survival instincts have been refined by knowledge and empathy and we have identified evil in that fashion. That is why crimes against a child are considered so heinous, since children are the foundation of our species' survival. That's a broad generalization, of course, but I think an examination of the moral systems of the ancients compared with our current morality will bear it out.

So in your last statement you concluded that evil is (your definition).

It was presented as an adjunct to our survival instinct. It is still not objective since it is affected by culture and other influences. If it were actually objective then what we consider moral would never change, but it has and it continues to do so.

And it was presented as an objective definition of evil. Here you have compared two sets of morality which would not be considered objective. Which is it?


A naturalistic way of looking at the world, so it seems to me, has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort; a fortiori [all the more], then, it has no place for such a category as horrifying wickedness.

Again, already explained. Man is one of the few animals that kills without real purpose, either to defend or for food. It is the two-edged sword of sentience that both lifts man up and also lets him descend. It's a path each person chooses.

This does not show how naturalism can account for wickedness. It simply shows that man kills without purpose.

And that is one of the things we consider wicked. It was meant as an example, not the only wicked act in the world.

[The problem is one of understanding] how, in a naturalistic universe, there could be such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. There can be such a thing only if there is a way rational creatures are supposed to live, obliged to live; and the force of that normativity"its strength, so to speak"is such that the appalling and horrifying nature of genuine wickedness is its inverse. But naturalism cannot make room for that kind of normativity; that requires a lawgiver, one whose very nature it is to abhor wickedness.

That is an assertion you cannot demonstrate. The presence of your so-called lawgiver has not prevented people from killing, stealing, and innumerable other things that improve their well-being at the expense of others. I point out the pedophilia running rampant and protected by the Catholic Church as an example.

I argue he does not necessarily have to in order to be good as presented in arguments below.

If it does not, then it is not truly a source of morality.

Naturalism can perhaps accommodate foolishness and irrationality, acting contrary to what are or what you take to be your own interests; it can"t accommodate appalling wickedness.

It can and it does.

Great, provide arguments for your claim.

Already explained, you chose to ignore it.

Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness (that our sense that there is, is not a mere illusion of some sort), and if you also think that the main options are theism and naturalism, then you have a powerful theistic argument from evil."

Again an assertion you cannot demonstrate since you cannot demonstrate the actual presence of your source of morality.

You did not ask me to present evidence for that. I was arguing that objective evil and wickedness cannot be presented by a naturalistic world view.

And that it demanded a lawgiver. A statement you cannot support.

As Paul Copan points out "The atheist assumes that (a) a good being eliminates evil insofar as he can and that (b) there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. But why should the theist accept (a)

Because a good person recognizes that evil damages the species. It's survival to remove it and we have codified that into our laws. If you don't accept (a) then you are more indifferent to evil than any non-believer.

No one is arguing we should not try to remove evil. The argument is whether or not God necessarily must eliminate all the evil he possibly can. The last part is argumentum ad hominem.

No, a conclusion and a conditional statement. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, walk away from it.,

or (b)? The definition of omnipotent. All powerful, able to do anything at any time, anywhere. God is also defined as omniscient (All knowing), omnipresent (Always there) and omnibenevolent (Always good). If he fails in any of those then he is not the god so defined.

I define God as the God present in the Judeo-Christian bible, but your definition of terms seems to be arguing for some other being. Maybe it was a waste of time after all haha.

Do you deny that your God is supposed to all powerful, all knowing, and all present?

However, the logical argument from evil doesn"t properly factor in human freedom or

Free will is not part of this discussion.

Why? Because it doesn't support your argument. That is one debating technique.

No, because it's a separate subject. Start a thread on that, if you wish to discuss it.

As Alvin Plantinga has written: "it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil. And if so, then it is possible that God has a good reason for creating a world containing evil."

Anything can be posited as possible but that does not alter what is. How can the supposed source of your morality, your sense of good and evil, your sense of right and wrong, knowing create immoral, evil, wrong things and beings?

You saying anything can be posited as possible actually proves my point. If it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing more moral goodness without creating one that also contained more evil than it stands that evil and the Judeo-Christian God are compatible. For the last part I would bring up free will but apparently that's not allowed because it doesn't support your argument.

I know this is mostly just quotes, but I think they capture well the heart of the argument that evil and the Christian God cannot co-exist.

I think it tries to avoid it by simply denying its possibility. It demands that a listener accept assertions that cannot be evidenced in any way in order to reach a conclusion. In short, it is just a rationalization based on supposition and nothing more.

In conclusion, there are a few main points to this discussion:

The first is whether objective evil and horrifying events could arise from naturalism. You say that it could because this is why we feel empathy for each other. Feeling empathy has nothing to do with objective evil being produced from naturalism.

The second point is whether the Judeo-Christian God is compatible with evil. My two arguments for this were that it is possible God could not have created a world with more good in it without also being more evil. You actually agreed with this statement which I showed above. My second argument was that God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, such as free will, but you decided we could not talk about that.

To summarize you have not provided a basis for naturalism explaining evil and wickedness, and you have not been able to show that God and evil are incompatible.

Thanks for your time. Have a good day.

And you have pro
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 7:41:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 4:49:28 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:35:59 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:29:34 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:16:15 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:04:43 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:02:23 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:22 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

No atheist should say that god does not exist because we simply do not know. Nobody does. : :

This is an untrue statement.

I welcome an explanation as to why you think this. I'm on the edge of my seat.

The untrue statement was, "Nobody does".

I have known God for many years. He was the one who taught me everything he wanted me to know before my body dies.

You know he exists? That would make it a fact that science can test and prove. How are you getting on with all that?

I get along fine with those who were designed to listen to his voice. Most scientists and religious people don't hear his voice so they don't have any evidence that he exists.

So you mean he speaks to you in your head and that in itself is evidence? I'm amazed you think that is remotely sufficient to know something so extraordinary.


God has revealed himself to many people called prophets and saints by directly speaking into their minds. Once God gets them to trust him, then he uses the prophets and saints to write and speak for him. This is how God teaches us about his plans for the future.

So is this where you try and offer me some proof? Anecdotes aren't proof, sorry.

Why would God need proof that he exists?

I'm asking YOU for proof to support YOUR claim.

You don't have any idea who I am, do you?


God also reveals himself to people called believers in indirect ways that we call miracles. These are experiences that can't be explained by believers other than God must have caused them. These believers are put in the path of God's saints who preach the gospel to them. The gospel is the voice of God where all his knowledge flows into a believer's mind as long as the believer is open minded enough to hear it.

This isn't proof either.

I know it's not and I don't care if you hear his voice or not. In the next age, you will hear his voice.

I don't have voices speaking to me in my head and if that happened to me I'd be deeply concerned.

Everyone hears voices in their head. Do you think that you hear voices in your ear?

The believers you're referring to are religious people who have no clue who God is. They practice traditions and teach each other religious dogma that keeps them from listening to the voice of God. When they hear his voice in the gospel, they reject him. : :

I don't waste my time with intra-religious problems, nor is it relevant to this debate.

Why are you communicating with me, then?

Because I find it fascinating that someone can claim to KNOW their version of a god exists. I'm not religious so this debate isn't intra-religious. It's about you trying to justify to the world that your claim has weight and so far it has none whatsoever.

It's not about me trying to justify my claims. It's about you who can't hear the voice of God.

There is no debating that fact. The believer thinks god exists. This is an opinion with no evidence in support of it. I do not worry if there is a creator and I am certainly not frustrated by the idea of one, I don't really care for it. What annoys me is how religious people use it to harm others. : :
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 8:05:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 7:41:56 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:49:28 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:35:59 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:29:34 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:16:15 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:04:43 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:02:23 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:22 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

You don't have any idea who I am, do you?

No and your identification bears no relevance for the purpose of this debate.

Everyone hears voices in their head. Do you think that you hear voices in your ear?

Mystery voices, whether heard internally or through my ears, are equally as worrying in my mind. Any psychiatrist would agree.

It's not about me trying to justify my claims. It's about you who can't hear the voice of God.

I find solace in the fact that I can't hear voices from a mystery character. The thought of something being able to read my mind at every moment in my life, is horrifically intrusive and disturbing.
To believe is to know nothing.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 8:08:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist
The conversation about the origin of the universe is a philosophical one, however the conversation about a creator of the universe worthy of supplication, worship and submission is a theological one.

Theists frequently make two claims, namely that they know:
1) that the universe was created; and
2) the character of its creator.

Atheists will generally reject that theists know anything, since every atheist I've personally met considers theology -- the traditions of supposed physical, moral and metaphysical insight claimed to have been either revealed directly, or received through scripture -- bunkum.

But theists can get confused about which point they're trying to make. They often think that a proof that the universe was created is a proof for their particular religion, when it's not support for religion at all.

What they need to show is that the universe can only be the product of their particular deity -- in other words, that the character of their deity is reflected in the character of the universe; a wise, compassionate an concerned deity should create a sensible, morally-ordered universe.

The argument that the universe isn't especially sensible and morally ordered is not an expression of hatred for a known creator, but an argument against theists knowing anything about how the universe was created and by whom. That's why it's often phrased as 'If God (meaning: your god) is so kind/wise, then how come...'
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 8:09:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 8:05:13 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 7:41:56 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:49:28 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:35:59 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:29:34 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:16:15 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:04:43 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:02:23 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:22 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

You don't have any idea who I am, do you?

No and your identification bears no relevance for the purpose of this debate.

All you needed to say was "NO".

Everyone hears voices in their head. Do you think that you hear voices in your ear?

Mystery voices, whether heard internally or through my ears, are equally as worrying in my mind. Any psychiatrist would agree.

Psychiatrists will agree with anyone willing to pay them money.

It's not about me trying to justify my claims. It's about you who can't hear the voice of God.

I find solace in the fact that I can't hear voices from a mystery character. The thought of something being able to read my mind at every moment in my life, is horrifically intrusive and disturbing. : :

God isn't mysterious when he begins speaking into your mind but if Santa Claus starts speaking to you in your mind, then you may have a problem explaining that to your psychiatrist.

Most psychiatrists weren't trained by God to know whether it's his voice or not that their patients hear.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 8:19:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 8:09:52 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 8:05:13 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 7:41:56 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:49:28 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:35:59 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:29:34 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:16:15 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:04:43 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:02:23 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:22 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

You don't have any idea who I am, do you?

No and your identification bears no relevance for the purpose of this debate.

All you needed to say was "NO".

NO.


Everyone hears voices in their head. Do you think that you hear voices in your ear?

Mystery voices, whether heard internally or through my ears, are equally as worrying in my mind. Any psychiatrist would agree.

Psychiatrists will agree with anyone willing to pay them money.

Quite.


It's not about me trying to justify my claims. It's about you who can't hear the voice of God.

I find solace in the fact that I can't hear voices from a mystery character. The thought of something being able to read my mind at every moment in my life, is horrifically intrusive and disturbing. : :

God isn't mysterious when he begins speaking into your mind but if Santa Claus starts speaking to you in your mind, then you may have a problem explaining that to your psychiatrist.

Ok, less mysterious and more creepy. I'd honestly have an easier time believing Santa Claus is real than God.


Most psychiatrists weren't trained by God to know whether it's his voice or not that their patients hear.

Why would God waste his time training psychiatrists so they can do their jobs better?
To believe is to know nothing.
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 8:22:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 8:19:10 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 8:09:52 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 8:05:13 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 7:41:56 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:49:28 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:35:59 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:29:34 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:16:15 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:04:43 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:02:23 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:22 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

You don't have any idea who I am, do you?

No and your identification bears no relevance for the purpose of this debate.

All you needed to say was "NO".

NO.

That's better.

Everyone hears voices in their head. Do you think that you hear voices in your ear?

Mystery voices, whether heard internally or through my ears, are equally as worrying in my mind. Any psychiatrist would agree.

Psychiatrists will agree with anyone willing to pay them money.

Quite.


It's not about me trying to justify my claims. It's about you who can't hear the voice of God.

I find solace in the fact that I can't hear voices from a mystery character. The thought of something being able to read my mind at every moment in my life, is horrifically intrusive and disturbing. : :

God isn't mysterious when he begins speaking into your mind but if Santa Claus starts speaking to you in your mind, then you may have a problem explaining that to your psychiatrist.

Ok, less mysterious and more creepy. I'd honestly have an easier time believing Santa Claus is real than God.

Most religious people would say the same thing.

Most psychiatrists weren't trained by God to know whether it's his voice or not that their patients hear.

Why would God waste his time training psychiatrists so they can do their jobs better? : :

He trained them to make a living and that's all.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 10:25:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

While I'm sure that there are self proclaimed atheists that actually believe in God in this way, as I'm sure there are also self proclaimed Christians who don't believe in God.

While I cannot speak for other Atheists here, although based on what they have said and how many have presented their arguments, I am fairly sure they will be of the same position: I don't believe in God, because I don't think he exists. I will go further and say that I am fairly certain that through logic, and evidence and self-consistency I can reasonably preclude ANY thus far human-postulated God.

A question in return, however; is the reason you make that argument that you can't believe how someone doesn't believe in God? Or because you honestly believe that this could be a reason why Atheists have that believe?
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 7:05:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 8:22:31 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 8:19:10 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 8:09:52 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 8:05:13 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 7:41:56 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:49:28 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:35:59 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:29:34 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:16:15 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:04:43 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:02:23 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:22 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

You don't have any idea who I am, do you?

No and your identification bears no relevance for the purpose of this debate.

All you needed to say was "NO".

NO.

That's better.

Everyone hears voices in their head. Do you think that you hear voices in your ear?

Mystery voices, whether heard internally or through my ears, are equally as worrying in my mind. Any psychiatrist would agree.

Psychiatrists will agree with anyone willing to pay them money.

Quite.


It's not about me trying to justify my claims. It's about you who can't hear the voice of God.

I find solace in the fact that I can't hear voices from a mystery character. The thought of something being able to read my mind at every moment in my life, is horrifically intrusive and disturbing. : :

God isn't mysterious when he begins speaking into your mind but if Santa Claus starts speaking to you in your mind, then you may have a problem explaining that to your psychiatrist.

Ok, less mysterious and more creepy. I'd honestly have an easier time believing Santa Claus is real than God.

Most religious people would say the same thing.

Most psychiatrists weren't trained by God to know whether it's his voice or not that their patients hear.

Why would God waste his time training psychiatrists so they can do their jobs better? : :

He trained them to make a living and that's all.

We've kind of hit a dead end. You've not satisified me that you KNOW a god exists. Do you know, just like a suicide bomber KNOWs he must blow himself up because it's what his god wants?
To believe is to know nothing.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 2:11:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 1:22:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
If I had to guess, I'd guess Rod is talking about my thread regarding a one-year-old baby girl and her parents being killed in a car accident due to a texting crankhead driving with a suspended license. What Rod fails to grasp, as do many Christian theists, the argument is that if God is the definition of Good, how could God let bad things happen. It's attempt to get people to look logically at their beliefs. It usually fails because the vociferous defense of God's goodness always obscures the actual purpose. Rod still doesn't seem to understand though I was quite specific about it in one post. It doesn't really matter because believers will always come up with an excuse for why their omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity could not or simply did not prevent unnecessary pain or death.
I read your post/thread which was an inspiration for this thread, but this is actually addressing many similar references (different sources including various internet forums). Your post is very common, and has been expressed for years.

There's nothing in your post that escaped me that I know of. I don't know what you think I don't understand.

If I have to make an excuse for God regarding this particular incident, then I've got to make an excuse for that person who died at the age of 100 years who seemed to die relatively peacefully in his/her sleep. The person still died. Not only that, I've got to make an excuse for the disappointed athlete who got cut from a football squad. Why should that person have to experience the pain of being cut while others get to live the big dream of playing in the NFL? You think that's a small thing? Not to the person being cut.

Do you think I need to make excuses for God for every human death (which is 100%), and every birth or accident that results in a physical handicap, and every disappointment in life that sometimes results in heavy depression?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 2:20:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 3:53:22 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

No atheist should say that god does not exist because we simply do not know. Nobody does. There is no debating that fact. The believer thinks god exists. This is an opinion with no evidence in support of it. I do not worry if there is a creator and I am certainly not frustrated by the idea of one, I don't really care for it. What annoys me is how religious people use it to harm others.
Everything seemed quite agreeable (I don't claim all atheists to be frustrated) until your last statement. How do religious people use religion (or God) to harm others? Or can you be more specific, like which religions, and how each use God to harm others (Islam = terrorism, Christianity = mega-church parking problems in neighborhoods, etc)?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 2:22:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 4:44:53 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:06:17 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time we see comments made by some atheists that God cannot be good because (fill in blank), often times referring to a specific tragic event to use as an example. And at the same time we see comments made by Christians or theists questioning the validity of the claim to atheism. And quite frankly, it should really be no surprise when the latter questioning comes forth when atheists speak of God as an existing entity. The idea of course is that they're supposed to be merely aiming their frustration apparent at Christians and theists for upholding a belief that God is good when nature takes a negative course, causing natural disasters and human induced tragedy.

This has got to be a miserable position because this alleged indirect critique cannot be aimed solely at the God of the Bible (or Quran, book of mormon, etc.). This has to include an impersonal deistic creator as well. If an intelligent being is responsible for our existence, then by the standards given usually indirectly aimed at the God of the Bible, any creator of any sort has to be equally evil (or whatever pejorative one chooses). This means that when given atheist goes backpacking, enjoying the splendors of nature (creation), they're doing it at the expense of an intelligent force (who may have the ability to read thoughts) that placed it there, and is apparently allowing given atheist to enjoy it's creation. It really boils down to the critical atheist having to really hope there is no creator, and that we came about naturally. Because if not, given atheist is abiding (and enjoying certain features) in the house of an owner he/she despises.

This brings up the question pertaining to the more critical atheist, does the "God Does Not Exist" stance really imply a firm belief in non-existence (or lack of belief), or is it a more symbolic stance meant more as a direct insult to a creator they suspect does exist ("I'm mad at you, therefore I'll hit with a sensitive issue, where it hurts..... You don't exist")?

That depends. If atheists are atheists for the so called "problem of evil", then your "insult" hypothesis might be right. If atheists are atheists because they understand fancy tales are never true, then their stance probably implies a firm belief in non existence (or lack of belief). I'm of the latter category, so in my particular case, it is a firm belief in non-existence, but I have no problem in admiting I consider God a villain, but pointing out I also consider him a fictitious literary character.
You consider the God of the Bible a villain. How about the impersonal god of deism?