An Atheist still Waiting for an Answer

Double post....................

 

Close enough.

I think it is a matter of choosing to be objective and following where the evidence leads. If someone already has determined what they believe as an atheist then they only see what fits their worldview.

 

Excellent response ... I like it very much.

 

The answer to your question as to whether or not I serve at food pantries, the answer is yes. I am in charge of a local churches food drive and deliver and stock food at the food pantry every month. I am also active politically on the issue.

The problem with your idea of choice being the culprit is that an omniscient god that is outside of time knew all of this would happen when he made the world, right? Why would he create evil? If all of our foibles were known beforehand, why did god let it loose?

<<<Mod edit: Personal Attack Removed>>>

 

To allow man to prove that man was the perfection of His (Gods) creative abilities.

 

OK then. Common rebuttals to the problem of evil, and why they dont hold water:

1. Free will argument - human free will mandates the existence of evil

Why is it wrong: It can only account for evil that is the result of conscious and informed decisions of people, which is only a small fraction of the world's evil content. It cannot account for natural evils (diseases, disasters..), and it cannot account for manmade evil that is the result of our flaws unrelated to free will (evil that comes from mistakes and imperfect knowledge or abilities rather than conscious intent). God could easily get us rid of this evils without hampering our free will at all. If he does not do so, he is malevolent, or not omnipotent.

2. suffering is necessary for [insert God's purpose with humanity].
Why is it wrong: If God's purpose with humanity is suffering, he is malevolent. If God's purpose with humanity is not suffering, then he should be able to achieve it without making humans suffer, and if he cannot do so, then he cannot be omnipotent - hence the problem of evil dichotomy still stands.

3. Some argue that due to humanity's limited knowledge, we cannot expect to understand God or his ultimate plan.

Why is it wrong: its basically appeal to ignorance, which is a fallacy. It answers nothing, moreover, it does not deal with the possibility that God is malevolent or not omnipotent - it includes it.

4. Evil is just the absence of good

Why is it wrong: It's just an empty sophistry that redefines terms - it does not matter if evil is "just" the absence of goodness or not, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God should be able to fill the whole universe with good, regardless of its nature.

5. Evil is just illusory - does not work if you are not a nihilist (dont consider morality illusory).

 

Thanks..............

 

Well that didn't work out so well, did it?

 

<<<Mod Edit: Personal Attack Removed>>>

God did not create evil. He knew that if given free will, some humans would choose it - and many would not, rather than enslave all the people to prevent a few from making bad choices, he allowed us ALL free will. KInd of the point iof being here.

Oh, the plan to prevent evil as you say? To prevent suffering, evil, etc? That was the adversaries plan, where all glory would go to Satan rather than God, and no one would fail - they would just be enslaved. And yet, here you claim on one hand to be a church leader? Engaged in the charity of the church, even as you advocate the adversaries plan?

Again, color me skeptical.

 

Yeah. because this venture is clearly done ... polio vaccinations, charity organizations, etc. etc. etc.

 

And a greater and greater division between the haves and have nots, greater global and national poverty than ever before, constant continuous war all over the globe, divisive hatred driven by doctrinal zealots of all stripes.
The strides of science are having a heck of a time keeping up with the decline in empathy.

 

Maybe you should read your history. If you think there is more pverty now than in the dark ages? Well, atheism is not about objectivity, its about disagreeing at all costs.

Nice source to back up your claim by the way - the world sucks because an atheist needs it too. Logic for you

 

There is a reason they are called the Dark Ages. What will they call now 500 years in the future?

 

Great, atheist arguementation that relies not on facts or evidence, but on Prophecy.

So, atheists presumptions about the problem of evil rest upon the ability to predict what unknown people will be saying 500 years from now.

Nope, the criticism that atheists will disagree at any cost is clearly well wide of the mark.

At least you didn't insult anyone that time. I guess that is progress of a sort?

 

Is it? Would you care to use some logical arguementation to provid some examples of how evil is ... not the result of choice? Because our court system is clogged with people who rarely raise the insanity defense, and, when they do, its rarely successful. So how did you arrive at this conclusion, other than by being contrarian? What evidence drove you to make such a delcaractive propogandistics statement?

Was Hilter not making a series of choices to do evil? Stalin? Mao? Kim il-Sung? Does a rapist not choose to rape? A murderer?

In short, in one paragraph, you have just declared that atheism finds the concept of personal responsibility to utterly frivilous and without merit.

This would be an example of what I term the ever changinhg standards of atheism, one in which the goal is merely to disagree rather than actually explore objectively. How do I know?

"[An Atheist] believes that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

http://atheists.org/atheism

I guess atheists DO believe in personal responsibility? Maybe? Who knows, they have no doctrine right?

If you are going to address what God wants and does not want, try referrencing our scripture. Otherwise, we have pontification rather than logical discussion. Again, the charge levelled at your arguementation is that it lacks analysis and is little more than ... blah.

God's plan of salvation is well known. However, there are legions of stories of answered prayers alone, in which prayers were anwered perfectly, but those who expereicened it did not realize it until years later. Its not an appeal to ignorance if its backed by evidence is it? When your mother tells you that staying up late is bad, and attempts to reason with you, and you don't understand and she says, "Well, you will some day, but the rule is still the rule," is that an appeal to ignorance, or the reality of someone wiser and smarter than you acknowledging that you don't understand?

Is your mother malevolent?

Now, would consider an omnipotent God to perhaps be smarter than ... even you? Perhaps? Would a God grasp things faster than you? Make connections and inferrences faster than you? And might that be the perfectly reasonable explanation as to why you don't understand what God is doing sometimes or even often?

That is not much of an arguement either way.

Perhaps you should address what the actual arguement actually says?

"However, when considering our own sensations of pain and mental anguish, there does not seem to be a difference in apprehending that we are afficted by such sensations and suffering under their influence. If that is the case, it seems that not all evils can be dismissed as illusory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Now, if our answers are deliberately misrepresenting evrything from the reality of judicial systems, beginning with an rebuttal that calls most evil ... illusionary, because only a tinest percentage of people actually choose evil, and then ending by calling such concepts nihilistic?

Well, as you can see, the intent of lazily dumping the problem of evil out of the forum is not objective analysis, its just to smear the faithful - by any means necessary. Once again, particularly with the last one there, we see again the deliberate avoidance of actual arguementation, completly reversing your thesis:

It is clearly atheists who dodge the tough questions, and simply manufacture 'evidence' and circumstance to avoid the tough answers.

 

This is getting ridiculous. Your responses have literally NOTHING to do with my points. Have you even read what I have written? You are the one avoiding argumentation and debate.

I have already provided such examples directly in the paragraph you replied to: natural evils (disasters, diseases), and manmade evils resulting from unintended mistakes instead of deliberate choice. Eliminating both of these evils would not hamper our free will in any way, hence the free will argument cannot be used to explain why they exist, if god is supposedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

There is no need to. My point is independent of god's purpose, it works no matter what it is: If God's purpose with humanity is suffering, he is malevolent. If God's purpose with humanity is not suffering, then he should be able to achieve it without making humans suffer, and if he cannot do so, then he cannot be omnipotent - hence the problem of evil dichotomy still stands. Both options are covered.

There is no credible evidence of prayers being answered more than if you dont pray.

This would only work if god is not omnipotent, just like the mother. If your mother was omnipotent, then she could just make you so you dont need to sleep at all, so demanding you go to bed would be pointless, if she is not malevolent.
Why does god need suffering to achieve his goal? Isnt he omnipotent to make it happen without it? Or he can, but does not want to? Then he is malevolent. Its really a simple logic.

When considering our own sensations of pain and mental anguish, there does not seem to be a difference in apprehending that we are afficted by such sensations and suffering under their influence. If that is the case, it seems that not all evils can be dismissed as illusory, so the illusory evil argument is wrong.

 

Lots of words, little value.

Your argument is silly and though worded nicely it does nothing other than out you as the greatest offender of the point you are arguing against. Go back and read all your posts. Have you personally answered the question? You have spent a great amount of time telling us how easy it is. I mean hell its been rebutted for over 2,000 years so it should take you less time to actually answer it than it did for you to Google some links and randomly post them in here.

Like the links you posted your argument consistently avoids and ignores the most important part of peoples posts with such precision it's hard to imagine its not on purpose.

Who cares about the evil of man, even if removed the question still stands.

I'm sure your Apologetics link can provide you with plenty of arguments against the "natural evil" in the world and yet you have failed to even mention it.

Its been rebutted but those arguments have also been rebutted hence the conversation continues.

I wanted to have this conversation with people here and considering the fact that the question has been around for 2,000 years if I wanted to present it as if it were new I would have provided some thesis to present it as such but I didn’t and for some reason that seems to bother you.

My OP stated that theists avoid the tougher questions and when presented with the opportunity to knock that assertion out of the park you’ve spent all your time yelling from the stands.

 

Did you read what I wrote? Because they are direct rebuttals to what you are writing. Direct. Perhaps it is you who are not reading what I write? Let's look shall we?

Agh a natural disaster is ... evil? Or is it natural? And man causes these 'natural' disaters? So the things commonly listed as evil, immoral, and wrong can just be ignored? The pogroms were of course a natural disater? Slavery was caused by a volcanic eruption? WWII was actually the result of a comet?

And yes, eliminating natural disaters would have a profound impact in our ecosystem, and it would eventually cause the death of ALL people. If you move into a known flood plane and it floods? God's fault right? But we need floods to naturally replenish the soil, etc. You move to a fault zone, and are hit by an earth quake? Well, apparently we should shut down plate tectonics and allow the planet to slowly turn into Venus? You live near a volnaco and it erupts? Well, who needs an atmosphere? In short, the only thing that matters ... is you? The longevity of humanity and our eco-system means nothing?

Terribly evil cad God, thinking that billions are more important than ... you.

As both questions are repeatedly answered in our literature, really, you should try research BEFORE arriving at a position?

Except that is not God's purpose or plan, it is your random pontification which has nothing to do with the arguement presented. Did you read it?

We make ourselves suffer kiddo, through OUR choices. We ALL die. Why are you pretending that death, in and of itself is a form of suffering? That death, in and of itself is evil It is going to happen to you, no matter what you do. Ergo, God is not terribly concerned about JUST keeping you alive - his intent is THAT YOU RETURN TO HIM HAVING LEARNED, with greater knowledge and wisdom.

Once again, it would really help if, when making the claim that these things haven't been answered in two thousand years, you actually read or understood concepts that have been around for ... two thousand years.

Especially if you dont look - have you? And this means that I have no read your arguement how?

That fact that God COULD do something, does not mean that he will. Your mother COULD bump you over the head with a bat, she could also slip something in your dinner causing you to fall asleep, etc. etc. but if she doesn't ... well, clearly not doing something that you COULD do - which would fundamentally undermine both free will and God's plan of salvation - well, that must mean he is not omnipotent? Because he gave you your own will and allows you to exercise it - he cannot be omnipotent?

Once again, you really should bone up on our doctrine before you reject it without a thought.

That is not even the point of that arguement. It goes into a longer view, in which pain and suffering are temporal in regard to a spiritual state - they are but the effects of learning and growing, hence not really evil at all. This is a concept, BTW, that is advocated by atheists favorite religion - Buddhism. It falls only within a select minority of other faiths.

It appears that what you disagree with the most ... is actually Buddhism. You appear to understand Buddhism as much as you do Christianity though.

So, it begs the question, do atheists pursue God objectively? Did they arrive at their conclusion of atheism through study? Or simply by seeing some propoganda - ike the problem of evil - and then signed up?

Well, advertising agencies the world over are thrilled!

 

SO, in other words, now that your lazy indoctrination of blindly following atheist propoganda has been exposed you return to the time honored tradition of insult and vaccuous accusation? What a shock. Wow, another atheist who is offended by nice words that sound nice, and is offended by evidenced based arguementation .... so much for atheism being the result of logic!

BTW - what you do is called an ad hominem.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Its alogical fallacy, and I am hardly impressed, but neither am I distraught, to see yet another atheist resort to it so quickly.

Here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

That is a little primer on how logical reasoning and constructs work.

Now, as predicted, do we notice how yet another atheist, rather than defending the validity of the problem of evil, is instead just rejecting all countering rebuttals, which they just discovered, with a series of non-standard evaluations, and gone entirely is the need for the atheist to defend his own position? We are back to atheist baseball, wherein, we simply find any reason at all to reject something, no matter how spurious or irrelevant.

So, either I am a prophet or atheists and their arguementation is so rigidly propogandistic that ... well, you all sound exactly alike.

Would anyone care to take a look at the other times the problem of evil has been sumped on the forum, and see whether or not atheists in that thread restort quickly to fallacy? Anyone?

 

So now you are claiming to be a prophet?

Natural disasters can not be so easily ignored. If you believe that god is the creator, then he crafted these things, and many can not be so easily avoided by not camping on the lip of a volcano. Tornadoes and hurricanes can devistate people that could not predict their arrival.
The evil perpetrated on a child is unconscionable, and the child can do nothing to avoid it by using their "free will". God knew all of this was coming, we presume, as he is outside of time, yes?
The bible itself doesn't even agree on the origins of evil. Punishment, test, sin, and more are all posited in the bible. Ecclisiastes even calls it completely random.

 

Perhaps there is a god... Perhaps god is simply a child abuser...

 

"outside of time" ??? Please clarify. How is it possible that one who is considered to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent to also be 'outside of time' when 'time' itself is a factor in the manifestation of any of those attributes?

 

If he is omniscient he has to be outside of time, to know everything that we will do, that will happen.

 

Clearly I must be as all my prediction related to atheists come true in short order? Or, as I said, atheists, being driven by propoganda rather than objective thinking, all same the same things, making the patterns easy to identify and predict. Its one of the two. Take your pick.

I know which it is

No one is saying ignore them. What the disagreement is about is whether or not a natural disaster is 'evil'.


e·vil
&#8194; &#8194;[ee-vuhl] Show IPA

adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.

2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.

3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.

4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.

5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

As we can see, the definition of evil, is in almost all cases, related directly to human activity - character, moral conduct, injurous, angry, etc. Aside from their being, "evil days," there is not much that recommends natural disasters as being 'evil'. Indeed, evil days can, and often does, refer to political events such as war, political unheavel, insurgency, rebellion, etc.

Now, when a lion chases down and kills a gazelle, is this considered evil? So why, if you build a home right on the lip of a volcano, and it goes off - well, why is the volcano suddenly evil and rather than the silly builder being a good candidate for the darwin awards?

Again, we are only here for a short time, and, whether we like it or not, there are systems in place that keep our planet healthy. If we value our lives above everything else, which is silly because we all die, then we have choices to make. Do we live in the fertile river valley and risk floods? Or hide in a cave growing mushrooms? Its not like people are unaware that natural disasters happen, and where they are likely to happen now are they? Calling them evil is, IMHO, silly.

Attempting to blame God for natural disasters is even sillier.

Really? You are telling me that people living on a beach in Florida are absolutely shocked that hurricanes hit the Florida coast? Yet they choose to run the risks and develop there anyway? They choose to take engineering risks that make some houses less able to withstand the INEVITABLE hurricane? In short, you are saying that God must be evil because humans are stupid.

Stupidity is a choice, and God gave you free will brother.

Oh yes, I am sure that God is involved in someone choosing to molest a child - who is blaming God ala atheist propoganda?

"Religion dulls the mind and weakens the senses. It makes "God did it" seem like a reasonable answer to anything at all, squelching questions of why, how, and when, and replacing these questions with repeated mantras and prayers to nobody."

http://atheists.org/religion

Now tell me, who is it that is blaming God for everything? The religious people, or atheists?

Tell me BB, since you are blaming God for everything bad that happens to children, whose fault is it that a child dies in a car accident? The drunk driver who hit the car? Or God? When Stalin's henchmen killed the children of people they were trying to get at (an act of pure evil), was it the henchmen who did that? Or God? Diseases you say? Well, how many children go on to beat their sickness and spend their life dedicated to beating the disease? Etc, etc.

Christians don;t blame God for every bad thing, nor do we use hyperbolye to call every bad thing evil.

And you are still left with, could ... by why should he? Why should God, giving us a short time down here to learn, really care if we die ... and return to him? The father than loves him? Well, he wouldn't. So, most of what you call as evil ... is anything but.

What a shock, evil has always existed, still does, and likely will in this temporal state. Therefore God must be evil? Or, every bad thing that happens is simply an opportunity for atheists to pretend that no Christians has ever answered the question, "Why Bad things happen?", and flame Christians?

But in the end, no matter how hard atheists blame God - one they do not believe in - what they offer no solution to is evil. Why do bad things happen atheists?

Lets see if you will avoid your tough questions?

 

An all powerful being can do anything, including limited his knowledge if he so chooses - he can restore that knowledge whenever he wants. It is you putting limits on the limitless - and you wonder why God so clearly warns us that we do not understand his ways. ANYTHING is possible for an all powerful being. Any achievement, any limitation can be self imposed. What God chooses to do and why with that power? Good Luck.