Religious discussion

No you can't, Why?

 

Do you believe a person has the choice to do his/her best with what they have been given? Did I ever say "suffering is due to poor choice?" It is, of course a goodly amount of the time but the rain falls on the good and evil alike. The difference is some make the choice to rise above it all. The rest drown in their pity. Life is a fleeting moment. Eternity is forever.

 

That does NOT save you from the many forms of serious ham and tragedy that are part of life on Earth.

I think yuo didn't understand the arguments above. They have nothing to do with one can, on average, reduce the pain. It has to do with the fact that tragedy will occur even given the best attempts of mankind.

 

The issue of god allowing tragedy on Earth has nothing to do with the question of whether human behavior can moderate or worsen the level of that tragedy.

 

I don't think that is what Flew intended to achieve with the definition. I think he was trying to vocalise the same idea that much of today's atheist movement has been trying to convey too. Flew writes (here):

The presumption of atheism which I want to discuss is not a form of presumptuousness. Indeed it might be regarded as an expression of the very opposite, a modest teachability. ​

He deliberately avoids defining atheism in terms of a proposition. It seems you have misunderstood what he tried to achieve.

Challenging the five ways is more consistent with the idea of remaining unconvinced by religious claims than claiming that no gods exist. This seems to me to speak against your assertion about what he set out to achieve.

It is unclear what arguments you purport to derive from each bolding, underlining or colouring. The full paper (here) goes on to defend his choices, at least to the point which is hardly unreasonable. He answers his hypothetical question, he produces a consistent reasonable logic, and justifies his choices of words. Seems reasonable enough to me, the only reason I haven't seen successfully justified is yours.

 

To me this is unbelievable. It sounds like a bunch of millennial's stamping their feet and whining because bad things happen. It's an "entitlement crowd" and they'll get what they want. They will never be grateful for anything. Just hang onto your I-phone and wait for the end to come. It doesn't get any better.

 

He used the definition of nontheism to redefine atheism, yeh thats some golden achievement there, is it any surprise his theories were used to hijack other definitions are rejected in academia.

Anyone who does not believe in God will challenge, and it goes without saying remain unconvinced, nope no correlation there, sorry.

So? Some murderers use reason to defent their choices, you score yet another garbage analogy.

Its truly a mystery why stanford and other universities of philosopy reject it as garbage and philosophically useless.

 

I agree that our choices need to be toward reducing suffering and that we have the ability to make choices that help with that for ourselves and for others.

But, that's a different question, because our choices will never eliminate suffering. So, the question of why God created a human condition that includes suffering still exists.

 

That sounds like the typical worshippers reply, God is only the almighty when it gets kudos for good stuff and bad stuff is either Satan or...hey....is that a flower over there>>>>>>

 

I'll make it simple. Of course it is a lot deeper. Some see the glass half full some see it half empty. We learn to be grateful. No pain no gain. We must develop character. God wants us to overcome. It is a combination of those things. But as I taught my Sunday school class this morning and the kids really seemed to understand....
Happiness always depends on "happenings". God wants us to have and learn "Joy". We can have that at any time. It is a gift.

 

Yes, there is the answer that god wants to test faith under fire. So, we get the story of Job.

When your Sunday School kid gets leukemia (for which there was never a choice) we're all supposed to learn "joy" and retain faith. That's one answer to the question of how we should respond, I suppose.

But, it's not an adequate answer for the question of WHY God added suffering to the human experience in the first place.

 

This statement is close to the one made by Adam when He was confronted in the garden. God asked him, who told you you were naked? (after he had eaten of the forbidden fruit) Adam responded "that women YOU gave me told me told me it was good to eat so I ate." In other words....Adams first response was to lay the blame on God for his own action. Likewise.....you choose to blame God for the actions of mankind. You act as though you are not guilty, but you and I sin everyday and all God did was give us "choice". He created us in His own image so we could choose to love.Then He took on the form of a man, came to earth, took on our weakness and did not sin. He sacrificed that effort in a supreme act of love so that we could be reconciled to Him for eternity. He provided a way yet we still have choice. I do not need to convince you. All is required of me is to state what I know.

 

This does't address the question.

Look, there is a root question here and you are putting your effort into dodging it.

 

I don't believe I dodged a question. You seem to be of the opinion that life should be all cake and ice cream. Well it isn't. We have a Creator. You may choose to deny that but the very fact you can, shows me his love for you. He didn't make you like the lower animals. All of His believers ask Him Questions why? We lost a grandchild and a Mother in law this year. Sometimes we'll never know the purpose until we are gone ourselves. There is so much good in the world and life to celebrate, It is a life of contrasts. Yes, evil exists.I don't dodge your question. I don't hold all the answers....but my faith is unshakeable. I'm glad I have it. The glass is half full.

 

My condolences to you and your family on your losses.

The question still remains why a god of the biblical description would create a flawed universe.
No, I'm not saying anything at all about what life SHOULD be.

 

It's explicitly what he set out to do, and he succeeded in doing so. It seems you were wrong about what he set out to do, and consequentially whether he succeeded in achieving it. That in turn of course means that his understanding of atheism is not a direct answer to the question "is there a god?", showing that your objection "flew however does not answer the question 'does god exist'." is not a valid argument against the usage of Flew's definition.

True, I'm merely pointing out that all the evidence you lay out indicate that he had set out to answer the question "is there a god?" is just as much, if not more, indications that he is setting out to have a metadiscussion, primarily about the epistemology of "is there a god?". Your assertion that Flew's definition of atheism sets out to answer the question "is there a god?" seems baseless conjecture on your part.

Of course, I don't mean to say that the fact that he argues it makes it true. I was merely saying that the objections like "Humpty-Dumptyism" are anticipated and dealt with in actual paper. Perhaps he is right, perhaps he isn't, but he seems to be several arguments ahead of you.