Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

OK, but you asked me directly to address a fundamental tenet of your belief which I stated I don't accept.

That is ASKING me to counter your beliefs.

Also, this whole thing is dangerous waters, as you clearly have a problem with hypothetical arguments, which is a limitation. I don't use a lot of hypotheticals, but every time I use the word "if" with you, I have to stop and think about it.

 

Agreed.
Good points up there.
It'd be hard not to choose to save the 50 and say goodbye
to the 30.

It would break my heart.
But I would have to choose my wife.
I married one time, to one woman. Been married a long time too.
And I have children also -- that I love very much.
So that would be a sad situation to dwell upon.
On the agony scale of 1 -- 10 , , it'd be a 10
I regret even bringing it up.
As I said the world has enough Hell in it, without me adding to it,


JAG

``

 

Do you consider religion when making trolley problem decisions?

You see pople as having souls that may be "saved" or "damned to eternal hell".

Would you tend to prefer to sacrifice a Christian on the grounds that sacrificing an atheist would damn that soul to hell without further opportunity to save?

 

That sounds like a description of threads all over the Internet.
But okay cool.

I don't look at it that way.
But whatever floats your boat.

, , ,lol , , ,
All this stuff that we do here is nothing but mere words on a
screen. The only danger is rubbing the skin off your fingers
by constant pecking on a keyboard.
{Except for the Dark Internet -- you know the websites that
the FBI reads --- now THAT stuff , , IS , , dangerous}

No.
YOU are the one that clearly has trouble with that, not me.

You take all this stuff to seriously.
Maybe you ought to just ignore me?
That'd be easier on you.
Why bother if you have to worry about using the word "if"?
Just forget it.
Life is to short.

JAG

 

I don't justify it.
I don't even recall the context where I used it.
I will classify my 99.9% as an opinion or
maybe it was just a hyperbole to make a point?
I expect 90% would work just as good?
Or maybe 85%?


``

 

Why? It doesn't answer my question. You have presented an argument that 14 is true, you have not presented an argument to why atheists should be posting threads about it. If you understood the atheist arguments, you would see that 12 plays an important part, whereas 14 is neither here nor there.

That doesn't seem to me to be a reason.

Consider some other bit of logic, and see if you treat it the same. For instance, consider neutral things. We could add to your 14 points a point 15:
(15) God created deep sea kelp (which for our purposes shall be regarded as neutral. If you object to kelp being neutral pick something else without inherent moral value).

Why is it that you expect atheists to state 14 but haven't mentioned 15? Do you think it is strange that atheists have never mentioned kelp? 15 is no less avoidable than 14, yet you are only surprised that atheists fail to mention one of them.

I am unsatisfied by the previous answers. Making poetry won't improve anything. You need to describe why an atheist who believes 14 should see fit to insert point 14 into a discussion where it does not belong. If the point isn't coming across, you need to figure out where the failure of communication lies and bridge it, not just blur words.

And why should atheists make posts based on your view? Many disagree that Plantinga destroys the argument. And even if we think Plantinga is fully correct, he only addressed the logical problem of evil, which is not quite the same as the problem of evil in its general form, which 12 still addresses. And even if the atheists were fundamentally wrong in trying to make the argument from evil altogether, 14 would still be neither here nor there.

I don't see how it follows from these points that one should post about these points. What is it about this set of points that you think invites posts?

You've yourself given examples of good arguments, like "Socrates is a man/men are mortal/Socrates is mortal", where every aspect in the conclusion is introduced by a premise. How come in this case, the idea that atheists should be posting anything in particular is missing from your suggested justification. It is not introduced in any of your points.

 

I have not made a decision on that one.
Neither the Fat Man Version or the Original Version.
I'm not sure what I would do.
I do not think my Christianity would have anything to say about The Trolley Problem.

I believe people have souls.
This is a Faith based belief.
I am not sure we know what "eternity" actually is.
I avoid the phrase "dammed."

No.
Then this , , ,
I don't know with certainty that there is no further opportunity
to be saved after death. God is Merciful and Gracious.
I don't take a position on the question: Is there an opportunity
to be saved after death. I hope there is. I don't know. I don't
think we can know for absolute certain.

Say what do you think about this:

Billy Graham Says:
"I think that everybody that loves or knows Christ, whether they
are conscious of it or not, they are members of the body of Christ
... [God] is calling people out of the world for his name, whether
they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world or the
non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ
because they have been called by God. They may not know
the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need
something they do not have, and they turn to the only light
they have, and I think that they are saved and they are going
to be with us in heaven.[134]"___Billy Graham
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham#Ecumenism


``

 

You seem to have misunderstood. I am not suggesting that you are an atheist, nor am I suggesting that I believe that you are an atheist. I'm suggesting that if you present a long list of points to a certain conclusion, you should include all the relevant information among those points. Why even put it in first person form when the person saying it isn't referring to themselves?

 

Do you have any justification to believe it's above 50%? 10%? 1%?

 

I daresay it would be impossible, as a metric of morality.

I think the point is that no matter who is your dearest person, the fact that they are dearest means that they are the person you would choose. The answer is presupposed by the question, if you ever found good reason to choose your second dearest person, then I would suggest that you have misidentified who your dearest person is.

 

I know you stand firm on that. Heck, even I might stand firm on that (details permitting). My question is not about whether 14 is true or follows from the rest of the points, but where the "ought" in your argument comes from. Even if all your points are true, your conclusion, that atheists should celebrate God or state his good deeds does not follow, and is not covered in any of your 14 points.

True, that judgement is mine. I think anyone who believes 12 but not 14 is stupid (depending on exactly how we count people who haven't considered it at all). If there were many/any atheists that believed what you suggest, that 14 is not true but 12 is, then I think they are stupid, and indeed, I think (and am pretty confident) that the vast majority of atheists are not that stupid.

And what do you know about what I know? I am pretty well versed in the religions/antireligious debate, the theological standpoints of atheism, the arguments that are often made and what implications and effects they have. I'm pretty confident that I understand the circumstances under which someone might bring up point 12. And as mentioned earlier, 4 out of 4 right is not super high statistics, but it beats your 0 out of 4.

 

What does the "it" refer to?
Remember I said I didn't remember what the 99.9% thingy
was referring to. I still don't.

 

I know 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

 

We disagree.
i do not think they are stupid if they do not agree with my {1} - {14}
I merely think they are being inconsistent.
Which is a Universal human failing.
We are all inconsistent at times.

JAG



``

 

I'm not a fan of Billy Graham because of the political influence he had and the issues he chose to promote.

His attitude toward women can be summed up by the fact that he denied his own daughters an education.

He was a strong backer of the Vietnam war, which up to that time was the worst decision America ever made, inolving the out and out sluaghter of humans, the spraying of an agricultural economy and its people with substances such as agent orange, etc.

He was anti-Jew in the US, with Nixon tapes recording him as suggesting that in a Nixon second term they could "take care of the problem" - referring to Jewish influence in various industries.

He backed the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians - an phenomenal humanitarian atrocity that ANY Christian would have to oppose.

He worked to make life harder for people who are same sex oriented - an absolutely disgusting objective.

 

You are guessing that your preposterous interpretation of this question is held by millions.

And, I would suggest to you that your interpretation is not accepted by atheists. It's ONLY you.

 

It is not a moral "ought" at all.
It is my view , , ,my opinion , , , my belief , , that in order for
them to be consistent they will also include 13 and 14

, , add my hope , ,

So?

So maybe we need to get rid of the word "ought"
because I am not saying they have a moral obligation
to include 13 and 14 , , , rather it is my
view
opinion
belief
hope

, , , that they will include 13 and 14

Is that better?

JAG

 

You're no fun to talk to.
You are constantly adversarial.
Constantly critical.
Nothing is bright and cheerful in your world.
I give you a Billy Graham quote and asked you what
you thought of the quote and you take that as an
opportunity to launch an attack on the person of the
late Billy Graham..
Just forget it.

``

 

Describes your understanding of my 1 to 14 perfectly,

 

Let us forever get rid of the words "ought" and "should"
and let us go ONLY with:
■ my view
■ my opinion
■ my belief
■ my hope , , ,
, , , that they will include 13 and 14

Repeat:
It is not a moral "ought" at all.
It is my view , , ,my opinion , , , my belief , , that in order for
them to be consistent they will also include 13 and 14

, , add my hope , ,

So?

So let us get rid of the word "ought" and the word "should"
because I am not saying they have a moral obligation
to include 13 and 14 , , , rather it is my
view
opinion
belief
hope

, , , that they will include 13 and 14

Is that better?

JAG

 

/Grin
Do they use that word "Heck" in the UK ?
I thought "Heck" was an American expression?
I have heard "Heck" used all my life.
I heard it was a euphemism for the word "Hell."
I mean that's where it originated, that is , , ,
say What the Heck
instead of saying , , ,
What the Hell
{they taught children to say that when I was young.}

/just saying

JAG

 

Good point.
Fully agreed.


``

 

Okay.
I misunderstood you. Sorry.
You make good points. {consistently}
Be back tomorrow.
'What the Heck"! , , lol , ,

JAG

 

My English is a bit of a mishmash, I've learned significant parts of my English in Scotland, England, Australia and through US media. I was thinking it was a weird word to use, I figured that particular turn of phrase expressed something I couldn't express another way (although I didn't spend particularly long trying to find alternatives). I considered using the word "hell" instead, but I opted for "heck" since it was less likely that the sentence carried some alternative meaning that I hadn't spotted.

 

We can simply read back:

Seems I had missed a 9 in the decimal point.

Our disagreement boils down to your idea that atheists don't agree with point 14, versus my idea that they do, they're just disciplined about what to bring up in what conversations (and at all) and therefore, they're just hidden to you.

So far, atheists seem to agree with me.