Any suggestions to refute atheism

[Sideline]

Do you think Catholics think painkillers are sinfull?
What do you think cloves are? whiskey? or your other favourite natural painkiller concentrated or otherwise.

Skip ahead… don’ look back…

If you think you are supposed to suffer, then it would logically follow that trying alleviate suffering is going against God’s plan.

No I don’t think that Catholics think painkillers are sinful anymore than I think you speak for the Catholic Church.

 

[StAnastasia]

Nor do I. Amoebas are pretty advanced, really. While the technology active in amoebas is fairly common to nearly all other species on the planet, they are certainly far from related to homo sapiens.

Humans are related to amoebae, as all life is related.

 

[AirLiner]

Thanks for the response mich2, I can understand your postion on faith and reason better.

I can’t believe my dualism argument lost attention on this thread, it was pretty good. Too bad shredderbeam stopped responding.

 

[Thing]

If you think you are supposed to suffer, then it would logically follow that trying alleviate suffering is going against God’s plan.

No I don’t think that Catholics think painkillers are sinful anymore than I think you speak for the Catholic Church.

I’m not surprised that you don’t understand it. You said I think we are supposed to suffer. What I’m saying is that we are going to suffer. So your logic won’t apply, because you made a mistake.
Whereas my logic works fine. Man lost Gods favour. And so lost paradise, (that place you wish for where humans do not suffer). As a result of losing paradise man is going to suffer. God makes the sun shine on him and the rain fall on him and provides food for him if he works for it and tonics and medicine to ease some of his suffering.
But every human on this planet will suffer because we lost the utopian life which you say God should have given you, logically.

 

[Sideline]

I’m not surprised that you don’t understand it. You said I think we are supposed to suffer. What I’m saying is that we are going to suffer. So your logic won’t apply, because you made a mistake.
Whereas my logic works fine. Man lost Gods favour. And so lost paradise, (that place you wish for where humans do not suffer). As a result of losing paradise man is going to suffer. God makes the sun shine on him and the rain fall on him and provides food for him if he works for it and tonics and medicine to ease some of his suffering.
But every human on this planet will suffer because we lost the utopian life which you say God should have given you, logically.

I’m really glad that it’s unlikely that God as you picture him exists.

 

[Thing]

I’m really glad that it’s unlikely that God as you picture him exists.

Of course nobody suffers at all in this life, what am I thinking of. Why, in this area 100,000 die per year, 80,000 are sick in hospitals, over 400 kill themselves, 300 are killed by others. And god as you picture him and want him, whatever way that is, is the god of all this suffering. Ok.

 

[Sideline]

Of course nobody suffers at all in this life, what am I thinking of. Why, in this area 100,000 die per year, 80,000 are sick in hospitals, over 400 kill themselves, 300 are killed by others. And god as you picture him and want him, whatever way that is, is the god of all this suffering. Ok.

Sorry, this is so confused and convoluted, I can’t figure out what your point is.

You are the one who looks at all of this suffering and somehow is overjoyed that coca grows at a high altitude.

Uhm… whoopee?

 

[Thing]

Sorry, this is so confused and convoluted, I can’t figure out what your point is.

You are the one who looks at all of this suffering and somehow is overjoyed that coca grows at a high altitude.

Uhm… whoopee?

You said you were glad that god as I described him, which I did’nt by the way, probably did not exist. The only thing we said about god was that he placed us in a world where we were going to suffer. You said you were glad that that god probably did not exist. So I wonder what world you live in. Is there no suffering in your world. And if you had a god would he be also a god of all the suffering, if there was any suffering in your world.
It is confusing because your answers are a bit confusing. Is there no suffering in this world and if you did have a god would he not also be a god of that suffering too.

 

[Sideline]

You said you were glad that god as I described him, which I did’nt by the way, probably did not exist.

You described what you thought were the actions of God. An entities actions speak to its character. So you provided a partial characterization. Providing a partial characterization is commonly called “describing”. So, yeah, you did.

What is more, you described your beliefs as being Catholic. I assume you meant to say that you believe in what the Church teaches about God. The Church, in the past 2000 years, has had rather a lot to say about God.

The only thing we said about god was that he placed us in a world where we were going to suffer.

Playing fast and loose with the word “we” there.

You said you were glad that that god probably did not exist.

The God as you described him, yes.

So I wonder what world you live in. Is there no suffering in your world.

Of course there is suffering in my world. There are just no gods who purposefully inflict this on people, or purposefully expose people to suffering, and call themselves good.

And if you had a god would he be also a god of all the suffering, if there was any suffering in your world.

Yes, isn’t it comforting to think that gods don’t exist.

It is confusing because your answers are a bit confusing. Is there no suffering in this world and if you did have a god would he not also be a god of that suffering too.

It is a bit confusing, because you are trying to hold onto two competing ideas. God is good, and God is a god of suffering. I can understand why you are confused.

I don’t have a God of suffering, because I don’t believe in God. However, if I did believe in God, I wouldn’t be singing his praises because citrus trees grow in one of the many, many regions that mosquitoes live.

If I did believe a god, I would believe in a god that is consistent with the world around me.

 

[spectrm]

@thing: see, that’s one of the main points in the chain I have trouble with. Yahweh is omniscient and omnipotent and created no disease or evil. Neglecting that with all his knowledge, he permitted satan to rebel, we’re still left with his knowledge that humans will mess up and suffer diseases from the bacteria and virii he created. Yet he has done no wrong? That isn’t a god, that’s a dictator, or a selfish 2yo. I’m very glad the likelihood of such a deity is low, as well.

 

[Thing]

If I did believe a god, I would believe in a god that is consistent with the world around me.

So you would believe in a god who is also a god of suffering.
Suffering is consistent with what I see in the world around me.

 

[Thing]

@thing: see, that’s one of the main points in the chain I have trouble with. Yahweh is omniscient and omnipotent and created no disease or evil. Neglecting that with all his knowledge, he permitted satan to rebel, we’re still left with his knowledge that humans will mess up and suffer diseases from the bacteria and virii he created. Yet he has done no wrong? That isn’t a god, that’s a dictator, or a selfish 2yo. I’m very glad the likelihood of such a deity is low, as well.

You are also faced with the fact that if there is a deity that that is the deity you are faced with.

 

[spectrm]

Really? Because a belief in a deity doesn’t demand a belief in a counter-deity (eg satan). I’ve never implied the character of my ‘god’…you, on the other hand seem quite the evangelist.

 

[Sideline]

So you would believe in a god who is also a god of suffering.
Suffering is consistent with what I see in the world around me.

Yes, god would be a cold, impersonal god. A god of suffering and indifference.

If you are fine with that being your god, then great. I got the impression you were Catholic, though. That isn’t God as Catholics describe him.

This is another thing that always seems to happen when I debate Christians. They seem willing to drop every belief they supposedly have in order to win their argument.

 

[Thing]

Really? Because a belief in a deity doesn’t demand a belief in a counter-deity (eg satan). I’ve never implied the character of my ‘god’…you, on the other hand seem quite the evangelist.

The character of your god, obviously, is seen in what he has created, yes?

 

[Thing]

Yes, god would be a cold, impersonal god. A god of suffering and indifference.

If you are fine with that being your god, then great. I got the impression you were Catholic, though. That isn’t God as Catholics describe him.

This is another thing that always seems to happen when I debate Christians. They seem willing to drop every belief they supposedly have in order to win their argument.

You jump the gun too much.
Why would you think a god of suffering is a cold impersonal god? What makes you think he would be indifferent? What makes you think I’m Catholic? Why do you think I’ve dropped every or even any belief, presumably that I’ve held?

 

[Sideline]

You jump the gun too much.
Why would you think a god of suffering is a cold impersonal god? What makes you think he would be indifferent? What makes you think I’m Catholic? Why do you think I’ve dropped every or even any belief, presumably that I’ve held?

It’s called thinking. If I see the equation: 2+2=* n*, I don’t wait for someone else to tell me what n means.

If god is a god of suffering, then god is indifferent or likes causing suffering. I’ve already told you that if I believed in a god, then I would believe in a god who is consistent with the world. I don’t see a god who likes to cause suffering, I see a god who is indifferent to it.

Why cold? It stands to reason an indifferent god is not warm.

Why do I think you are Catholic?

When I asked you if you get freezing when getting dental work, you answered this:

Do you think Catholics think painkillers are sinfull?

It is a rather strange question to ask for someone who is not Catholic. If you are not Catholic, you certainly seem to want me to assume that you are representing a Catholic opinion.

 

[Thing]

It’s called thinking. If I see the equation: 2+2=* n*, I don’t wait for someone else to tell me what n means.

If god is a god of suffering, then god is indifferent or likes causing suffering. I’ve already told you that if I believed in a god, then I would believe in a god who is consistent with the world. I don’t see a god who likes to cause suffering, I see a god who is indifferent to it.

Why cold? It stands to reason an indifferent god is not warm.

.

Great. Your god is indifferent to suffering, because you see the world as being indifferent to suffering. You are part of the world, and you have the choice to be indifferent to suffering or not. And your choice to be non-indifferent to suffering is part of the world too; and so it is part of your god too. => your god does not equal indifference and coldness.

 

[Sideline]

Sideline, does God oppose murder because it is wrong, or is it wrong because God has decreed it to be so?

Sorry, I completely missed this post before.

The way that this is phrased makes it kind of tricky to answer.

For one, I don’t believe that there is a god, so I have to do a little mental rearranging to figure out how to answer this. It isn’t exactly the same, but it would be a little like my asking if you believe that killing a unicorn is wrong, and if so why? The second problem is that murder is, as I’ve said before, immoral or wrongful killing.

In that case, it would seem to suggest that murder is wrong because it is wrong. Because a god who said something that was wrong, was right, is not a moral god.

(By the way, I’m trying to distinguish between generic gods and the Catholic God. If I mess up and use the lowercase, when I should use the uppercase, I apologize.)

However, as I’ve also discussed, there is a disagreement about when killing is wrongful. If we were to say that God gets to decide what is murder, and what isn’t, then killing doesn’t become murder unless God says it is. But in that case, morality is merely the whim of God. Saying “God is good”, is equivalent to saying “God is what God wants to be”.

So, to answer the question, you could argue that killing is murder when God says it is, but for murder to be truly wrong, it has to be wrong for some other reason. Otherwise, it is merely the opinion of a creator who decides these things arbitrarily.

 

[spectrm]

The character of your god, obviously, is seen in what he has created, yes?

Once again, the use of rhetoric clouds the point. I don’t believe in a god - I DO have atheist in my religion field - so there is no character to my ‘god’. Your presumption that my ‘god’ should be a creator - to boot - only further exacerbates things.

An indifferent god is not inherently a god of suffering. My ‘god’, has no character and therefor can’t be indifferent or differentiating. The implication of a godhead is what demands this form of characterization (by other definitions: evangelizing).

@sideline: Using the terms godhead when speaking of a sentient, active-agent god, and god when referring to a general use-case helps to uncloud the g-capital-G discrepancy. If you are referring to the Catholic god, that’s how I do it. To me, their god is one of many (like baseball teams), so specify the faith then append ‘god’. Do as you wish, but that’s what I do.