Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

I did not.

 

Okay.

JAG Wrote:
I meant the Real You.
You have a body.
You have a brain.
You are not your body , , , WillReadMore = His Body is incorrect.
You are are not your brain , , , WillReadMore = His Brain is incorrect.

The real You is the part that can love and appreciate the wiki article on SpaceTime
You told me you really liked or loved that article and that I ought to read it.
That was not your mere Brain telling me that , , it was the Real You telling me that.

So if it was the Real You that liked or loved that Wiki SpaceTime article.
Then it was not your mere Brain that loved or liked it.
Your brain is merely a material vehicle that allows the Real You to think, reason, love, etc.
You ARE not your Brain.
YOU = YOUR BRAIN in incorrect.
You can picture in your mind what your brain looks like.
The web says it weighs about 3 pounds.
Your brain is about the size of a grapefruit? Or a large apple?
But Your Brain is NOT the Real You.

Your Brain is a mere tool that allows the Real You to really like and appreciate the
Wikipedia article on SpaceTime.

When your Brain dies, that does not mean that the Real You dies.

When your Brain ceases to exist {decomposes} that does not mean that the Real You
ceases to exist.

So that up there is what I meant by my comment about the Real You's interest in
that SpaceTime wiki article.

And WillReadMore Brushes It Off With This:

``

 

You couldn't even understand what the more sophisticated atheists think.

 

Your reply had zero to do with the post that you quoted and
"responded" to --- its clear that you just glanced at the post and
brushed it off. And I put some time and effort in it for you, thinking
that you would find it interesting and bright and cheerful and an
upward mobile positive constructive --- but obviously not

Thanks for the brief chat.


``

 

Oh brother, there you go again!

It is HIGHLY likely that you just didn't understand the argument being presented to you.

I think there are SOME atheists who aregue that IF there were a god, then he would be responsible for the bad as well as the good.

They are just questioning the internal consistency of YOUR religion..

That does NOT mean they think there is a god that IS responsible - it just means that Christians can't claim only the good as god's acts - a point that may be logical, but seems weak to me.

I'd rather not go that route. I'd rather just point out that the bible says we can not know the reasos for acts of god.

Why does Jimmy have such serious mental deficits? It's because he lived in Flint and he drank the lead infused water.

You can't go from there and propose why god did or did not allow that to happen. It's not a basis for postulating a devil. It's not a refutation of atheism or Christianity or any other religion.

If we don't like the outcome, maybe we should do something about the water as well as the decision making process that so monumentally failed. Maybe we should look for places where the same negligence is being committed.

 

It is CERTAIN that you just do not understand the
argument that is being presented to you.
Here it is again:

Many atheists say the following:
{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

___________________________________________

"My point is NOT that God IS good or that God IS evil.
My point is that God PERFORMS both good and evil acts
based upon {6} through {14}. Remember {6} through {12}
is what atheists say --- {6} through {12} is NOT what JAG
says. I do NOT have to be consistent with a position
that I do NOT hold. But atheists do. Why? because they
DO hold {6} through {12} to be true and they DO advocate
for {6} through {12} all the time in threads."___JAG
_____________________________________________

Many atheists want it both ways.
They want to say that the "God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes
or is ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. They say
this in threads all the time. They base this on {6} through {12} up
there.
So? So if {6} through {12} are not true, then they ought to stop
claiming that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist is ultimately responsible
for the evil in the world.
And if {6} through {12} is true, then God is also responsible for causing
the good in the world, Hospitals, Warm Beaches, the Red Cross, etc
and we're back to {13} and {14} being true."___JAG

``

 

I guess an ability to articulate a coherent response was too much to ask.

 

Great questions! (Excuse to ramble on forever - sorry!)

I see it as:

- relating to my decision making process going forward. I don't make decisions based on claims made concerning what specific gods might want or on the basis that I have an everlasting "soul". A lot of what religious philosophers have said is seriously important to consider at all times. That thouht exists outside of ther question of god..

- a concern that arises when decisions are being made on a basis that I believe has no justification. This comes up all the time. We have a tendency to want to make sins illegal. So, if god said women marrying each other is sinful, then let's make a law against it. Belief in a specific god affects pretty much all public police decisions at every level, so this is FAR from a rare issue. Sometimes it's not a negative. Christians are directed to care for the poor and sick! I like that!



I think you would be more cncerned about the question of the existence of big foot if we were making laws on the basis of our understanding of what big foot might be all about. As it is, big foot doesn't affect your life, so no big deal.

As an atheist, I'm not here trying to disuade JAG or anyone else concerning god. I've taken pretty reasonable care NOT to do so, imho., even though the topic would make that a possible direction.

While Christians are directed by Jesus to proselytize throughout the entire world I have no such calling.

I'm not traveling the world to teach people that their religion is crap.


Agnosticism is strange. How the heck do you know if someone is agnostic vs. atheist? I think everything I do could be interpreted as agnostic as easily as being interpreted as atheist.

Everybody knows there isn't "proof" that there is no god.

Couldn't I call myself an agnostic just as easily as suggesting I'm an atheist? Who am I to say that there is no possibility of some god convincing me of his existence? How could I possibley make a different decision based on "maybe there IS a god of some description".

 

Asked and answered.

No atheists says there is a god. Period.

You just don't understand what it means to test a system for internal consistency.

 

You are making an astounding claim - that there is somethign about an indiviual that has life beyond death and is entirely indetectable.

You just claim it as true without any support whatsoever.

Nobody should accept such monumental claims with no evidence and without so much as an argument in favor.

All I'll say here is that I am not convinced by you making such a claim.

 

False
And also total nonsense.
Atheists say {1} through {12} all the time in threads
on the Internet.
If you don't know that, then you do not know what
is constantly said by atheists in threads on the Internet
and anybody who does know and reads what you
write KNOWS that you do NOT Know.

Many atheists say the following:
{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
And They Therefore Ought To ALSO Say This:
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

___________________________________________

"My point is NOT that God IS good or that God IS evil.
My point is that God PERFORMS both good and evil acts
based upon {6} through {14}. Remember {6} through {12}
is what atheists say --- {6} through {12} is NOT what JAG
says. I do NOT have to be consistent with a position
that I do NOT hold. But atheists do. Why? because they
DO hold {6} through {12} to be true and they DO advocate
for {6} through {12} all the time in threads."___JAG
_____________________________________________

Many atheists want it both ways.
They want to say that the "God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes
or is ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. They say
this in threads all the time. They base this on {6} through {12} up
there.
So? So if {6} through {12} are not true, then they ought to stop
claiming that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist is ultimately responsible
for the evil in the world.
And if {6} through {12} is true, then God is also responsible for causing
the good in the world, Hospitals, Warm Beaches, the Red Cross, etc
and we're back to {13} and {14} being true."___JAG


``

 

I responded to the first (an I think only) new issue I detected in your characteristicly long and duplicative post.

 

That is also true for a huge amount of what you post.
You hold Faith positions on a lot of what you assert to be true.
You could not prove a large percentage of what you assert
if you were offered $100,000,000 as motivation.

JAG

Scot me up Beamy.

``

 

Duplicative because of your repetitive
already refuted incorrect assertions
about my {1) through {14}.

 

The motive was not to convince you.
The motive was to intelligently discuss the issue.
But you killed off the possibility of having
an intelligent discussion probably because the
subject "makes you uncomfortable", me things.
So forget it.

``

 

You are free to suggest specific to discuss.

 

I'm not interested in trying to disuade you from your beliefs.

 

You can pick the subject if you want to.
I'll chat with you about what you want to kick around.

JAG


``

 

I'm not claiming to speak for every atheist, I'm claiming to speak for a large enough percentage of those atheists that I can comfortably ask a random selection of atheists and the vast majority of them will agree with me (a claim which I put to the test and turned out to be true). It also helps that I have taken the time to understand what atheists think (something which you seem reluctant to do) and how points 12 and 14 fit into that. I understand what principles they try to be consistent with and why. I don't know everything that 500 million people believe, but I'm pretty confident they're not as stupid as you suggest they would be.

 

You tell me that repeatedly.
I do not think you are trying to convince me that my beliefs are
not true. I have NEVER thought that. In fact it never crosses my
mind to think that.


``

 

I am going to stand firm on this:

Many atheists say the following:
{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
They Therefore Ought To ALSO Say This:
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

___________________________________________

"My point is NOT that God IS good or that God IS evil.
My point is that God PERFORMS both good and evil acts
based upon {6} through {14}. Remember {6} through {12}
is what atheists say --- {6} through {12} is NOT what JAG
says. I do NOT have to be consistent with a position
that I do NOT hold. But atheists do. Why? because they
DO hold {6} through {12} to be true and they DO advocate
for {6} through {12} all the time in threads."___JAG
_____________________________________________

Many atheists want it both ways.
They want to say that the "God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes
or is ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. They say
this in threads all the time. They base this on {6} through {12} up
there.
So? So if {6} through {12} are not true, then they ought to stop
claiming that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist is ultimately responsible
for the evil in the world.
And if {6} through {12} is true, then God is also responsible for causing
the good in the world, Hospitals, Warm Beaches, the Red Cross, etc
and we're back to {13} and {14} being true."___JAG

I have never suggested that they were stupid.
________

I am going to stand firm on this:
JAG To Swensson:
"It is a fact that you cannot speak for the world's some
500 - 750 million atheists and therefore a vital crucial
element of your argument fails.

The fact is that you do not know what those 500 -750
million atheists believe about 13 and 14."___JAG


```


``

 

I think the fact that we can think of scenarios in which there is no possible nice outcome is a given. Indeed, it is true in the trolley problem too. The interesting thing about the trolley problem is that there are decent reasons for either choice, and indeed that we can vary the details about the trolley problem to produce seemingly morally equivalent examples, but which trigger different moral intuitions. In contrast, your first example doesn't seem to be a moral one (unless we're somehow struggling to see the bad in killing people), it's a pretty straightforward moral choice. The fact that the circumstances are sad doesn't make the morality complex.

Similarly, in your second example, it seems to me it is sad that your child will die, but it doesn't change the fact that if one is dearer, and there are no other moral imperatives (wife/child seem to be suggestions rather than an invitation to consider the morality of killing children as opposed to adults), then there is no reason to choose the second person above the first, but there might be to choose the first over the second.

 

I don't see another reason for discussing the valildity of a specific tenet of your belief.

You believe there is a "soul" (or however you would characterize it) and I'll go so far as to call that out as a difference.

I'd point out that the fallacy of your OP has been explained by several posters and those explanations don't even conflict with your religious belief.

Now, you want to discuss theory of mind, a topic that probably is strogly tied with your religious belief.

Your topic is what atheists believe. I'll stick to that.

 

This has been answered over and over and over again.

The original question being asked of you is a hypothetical meant to question the internal consistency of the religious argument about what god may or may not be responsible for doing.

It is a clear case of someone asking, "If you believe x, then don't you also have to believe y?" That does not imply that the questioner believes x.

There is nothing wrong with the hypothetical and it DOES NOT imply that the questioner believes in the hypothetical - which in this case is obviously ridiculous.

 

I'm not sure what "world atheism" is. I don't in particular claim to speak for atheistic buddhists or satanists (although it strikes me as likely that they would agree). I have a pretty good understanding of what modern, secular, western atheists think though. For instance, I'm fairly certain that they don't believe that 2+2=5, which (if I am right in saying that) shows that I have possible ways of knowing what people believe without asking them individually.

It seems to me the 4 people are worth quite a lot. For instance, if there are 500 million atheists in the world, and half of them, 250 million believed point 14 and half of them did not, I could not be confident that if I asked four of them, that they would all agree with me. It would be pretty likely that at least two disagreed (and even if I by accident picked four that agreed, I couldn't have been confident as I was, i.e. I wouldn't have asked any atheists at all).

But by all means, if you're going to be this picky with how we know what people think, how do you justify your number 99.9%?