How do I turn the table on atheists?

[karebear92]

Well, my thoughts on this are as an omnipotent merciful kind and loving ‘‘father’’ as He is described by christians, yes He should. I think it is very much a consequence of His inaction that others suffer, given the all knowing, all present, all powerful, all loving nature of His being. Which brings up the other issue about prayer and pleading - I specifically cited the cases of christian women raped because it’s fair to say these women would have called on God for help and to keep them safe. We are told, in several places in the Bible, to ask, and it wil be given, and we are also told that anyone who harms a child it would be better a millstone was tied around them and they were drowned. This implies an incredible love and protection of the child. And yet, the abuse is not stopped?!?

Well, let’s consider this for a moment. If God limited free will, then what’s the point of earth? Would He really love us or would He love himself for making us who we were? That doesn’t make sense theologically, which obviously won’t turn the table on you because you don’t believe in theology, but still, as a counter to theism, it doesn’t work very well. I think this is a case of different viewpoints. It’s impossible to turn a table when you are sitting at a different one.

Well, youre not comparing like with like. There is no comparison between the limited actions of a human and the actions an all knowing, all seeing all present loving God can do. And in fact, I would have to say, humans generally are very loving and kind and go the extra mile to help their fellow man out. Children have actually been taken away from bad parents where they are deemed at risk - thats humans caring for the child - public health initiatives, bans on smoking just about everywhere, and assistance with quiting the drug habit are indeed available - that’s humans caring for humans, and just look at the drink awareness campaigns. I KNOW we have free choice and free will and I KNOW our actions impact on otheres, which helps determine the morality of them too.

You used the analogy of a big man witnessing a crime. I was just adapting it. And I agree that humans are loving and kind, but why? And will that change in the future now that society is slowly becoming more and more isolated while competition is becoming fiercer?

If two people, your 6’5" brother and a strangers child, were in danger, who would you help first? I would help the child but evolution would have me helping my brother. How does that morality develop through evolution?

I also know if I came across a child being abused or a woman being raped I would do anything I could to get them out of immediate danger - and I’m a tiny person - think what a larger more powerful person would and could do, then think what God could do. Yet it just doesnt happen does it where God is involved?

Same thing here. You are a tiny person, and your genetics are your priority, so why would you help a child, who is not related to you, if it put your life and genetics in jeopardy?

This comes back to the question I raised earlier - so a significant amount of the population - generally the most weak and vulnerable - have to suffer just so God can love us and see how we act when we have free will and how we chose to act using that free will

None of that makes any sense to me what so every.

However, once God is removed from the equation, it makes perfect sense.

So to ‘‘turn the table’’ on this atheist, these are some of the questions that would need to be answered in a way that actually makes sense.

Sarah x

Yes. God loves us and with that love He gave us free will, which allows Him to love us and not Himself. If He limited free will, He would not be an all loving father but a ruthless dictator who disallows the existence of anyone the opposes Him. The week may suffer for a moment, but that moment is insignificant when compared to eternity, and that eternity is only through love if He allows us the free will to choose it; to choose Him. They suffer so that everyone can exist with free will. It is noble, and at the very least they are tools to bring about the greater good, which is eternal existence for all who choose it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Well, of course, removing God would allow for a more coherent view of the world for the atheist.

I didn’t say remove, I said not include. The difference is subtle.

I do not recall how you have addressed my question on the universal existence of patterns in nature.

You recall correctly, and your observation will continue for at least the next week. If it’s a discussion in which you would like for me to engage start a thread after 23 November (I’m leaving my home country soon and plan to have returned by then).

Now, I know that there have been posts that have essentially just ducked the question by claiming the reason for createion is ‘it just happened’. But as a real 'Thinking’Sapien - you and I know this is a cop-out response, and does nothing to further any understanding.

I would first ask questions on semantics in the question, especially around the word “reason” before getting into a discussion on that.

So, if you want to maintain your current position as an atheist, you will need to do much better than this. Go on, give it your best shot - I have confidence in you!

Questions on the logic of that statement aside, I’ll make a comment on my position in hopes of making it better known. I’ve got a desire to gain knowledge about the world around me. If there are gods in this world then they are something about which I would like to know to. I have got no desire for or against being an atheist, monotheist, polytheist, deists, pandeist, so on. Since I don’t hold beliefs of any gods under some definitions I am considered an atheists (under others “agnostic atheist”, “agnostic”, “ignostic” and so on. We’d have to agree on some meanings to nail that one down). I don’t have any desire to “maintain [my] current position” of not holding a belief in any gods. Nor do I have any desire acquire a belief in gods. Though thoughts on the various god concepts to which I have been introduced will be impacted by other information I acquire.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Since you haven’t responded to my points about skeptical theism’s abject, bayesian failure, I’ll assume either you don’t understand the argument or don’t have a response to it.

Its irrelevant what i know or don’t know about Bayesian reasoning. I know logic. You haven’t shown my argument to be false. You have falsely equated it with a more general epistemology that is irrelevant to the question of moral action and what merits moral action in the wider context of creating beings who freely choose to become saints. What ever you think you have proven, you have certainly not proven that God doesn’t have a good reason. Since it is evident that sometimes direct moral prevention can cause a greater evil in situations where protecting human freewill is of more importance (is a greater good) then preventing harm, it follows that there may very well be variables that you are not considering and cannot possibly know of given your intrinsically finite knowledge and wisdom.

You cannot refute that.

In any case i don’t think you fully understand Bayesian reasoning and its proper application. You are just like people who think that they can bring science to a discussion about metaphysical absolutes, as if it has any relevance to the subject.

But if you think you know better, then perhaps you can demonstrate its relevance to moral choice in the context of this particular debate.

 

[Jim_Baur]

We must preach God by His actions of love through us.

Also, as Thomas says, we do not believe because of our little arguments. We believe because God has revealed it to us. Our silly little argument help explain faith after we already have it.

 

[Bobber90]

Nothing is not a reality, you say. That means: ‘what is not a reality is not a reality’. If I accept your definition, I cannot use those terms in a contradictory way. Indeed, if nothing is not a reality, then truth as the correspondence between a statement and reality cannot apply to statements about nothing.

However, there is no requirement that the meaning or connotations of the word ‘reality’ are bound by being. If I simply say that the word reality means ‘either the totality of what is or what is not’, then there can be a correspondence between a statement that there was nothing, and the reality that there was nothing. Perhaps we ought to state which truth we are using, each time we claim a statement is true(!)

That will not work, because nothing is not a reality. It can never be true that 2+2 does not equal 4. If there was absolutely nothing the sum of 2+2 would fail to be true; and that is a contradiction. Logical truths cannot exist without reality. All truth would fail to be true in absolutely nothing. You seem to be under the impression that there is a distinction between the act of being real and something being true. But you cannot say that absolutely nothing can truly exist without making the contradiction of giving it reality. A thing can only be objectively true in reality. Absolute Nothingness is the absolute absence of all possible reality.

I agree that all contingent truth can cease to exist; the universe being a collection of potential events doesn’t have to be real. But that is not a true description of absolutely nothing. I know this because if everything was truly non-existent, then it would be objectively true that nothing exists, nothingness would be an objective truth and thus would have an actual reality, and that would be a contradiction because there is no objective truth/reality in absolute nothingness. Therefore there is a necessary reality.

Nothing cannot be a true state, it cannot have an ontology, because to be true is the nature of reality; not nothing.

 

[atheistgirl]

And I agree that humans are loving and kind, but why?

Empathy mostly.

And will that change in the future now that society is slowly becoming more and more isolated while competition is becoming fiercer?

Personally, I dont think so.

If two people, your 6’5" brother and a strangers child, were in danger, who would you help first? I would help the child but evolution would have me helping my brother. How does that morality develop through evolution?

Almost certainly, I would rescue the child. My 6 -5 brother would have a fighting chance for longer than the vulnerable child one. Emergency Scene management works on the same principle. In some parts of society, there’s no doubt people are more insular - but I heard an expression once that is very true and applies - although in much more subtle ways - to most of the world: the expression was by an african who said, I dont bring up my child, the village does. Morality as we see it and feel it and experience it today I think is very well explained by evolutionary processes. And more and more neuroscientists and neurologists are finding the areas of the brain where all this is mapped. See the link I posted earlier about the guy who developed a tumor which fundamentally changed his sexual/criminal behavior.

Same thing here. You are a tiny person, and your genetics are your priority, so why would you help a child, who is not related to you, if it put your life and genetics in jeopardy?

For the same reason fire fighters rush into burning buildings, police officers enter dangerous locations, paramedics rush to the scene of a shooting where the shooter is still at large or an earthquake where no one knows what the heck is happening and buildings are falling everywhere, for the same reason ordinary people do extrodinary things every day - many with no belief in any kind of god, but with powerful empathetic responses and a natural, healthy, sometimes overwhealming desire to protect the needy and the vulnerable.

Yes. God loves us and with that love He gave us free will, which allows Him to love us and not Himself. If He limited free will, He would not be an all loving father but a ruthless dictator who disallows the existence of anyone the opposes Him. The week may suffer for a moment, but that moment is insignificant when compared to eternity, and that eternity is only through love if He allows us the free will to choose it; to choose Him. They suffer so that everyone can exist with free will. It is noble, and at the very least they are tools to bring about the greater good, which is eternal existence for all who choose it.

And the consequences of using your free will in a way that He does not approve of? Eternal punishment Im sorry but to me that is the very essence of how a ruthless dictator would behave. ie please, I give you life and free will, you can do as you please, but if you ACTUALLY use your free will in a way I dont approve, then its eternal damnation for you

Sarah x

 

[Perplexity]

Its irrelevant what i know or don’t know about Bayesian reasoning. I know logic.

In so far as you’re interested in interacting with my argument, it’s quite important to have a basic understanding of Bayes’ theorem. I think by logic you just mean critical reasoning, otherwise I can’t see the relevance of that remark. In that case, I’m glad. These conversations need critical thinkers.

You haven’t shown my argument to be false. You have falsely equated it with a more general epistemology that is irrelevant to the question of moral action and what merits moral action in the wider context of creating beings who freely choose to become saints.

My argument is that skeptical theism is crazy improbable. I aim to take skeptical theism off the table. Skeptical theism is the idea that God’s moral justifications are beyond our ken. Also, Bayes’ theorem is applicable to any conditional probability…conditional probabilities involving moral action are no exception.

What ever you think you have proven, you have certainly not proven that God doesn’t have a good reason.

My argument’s conclusion is not that God doesn’t have good reason for permitting evil, it’s that skeptical theism is vastly improbable.

Since it is evident that sometimes direct moral prevention can cause a greater evil in situations where protecting human freewill is of more importance (is a greater good) then preventing harm, it follows that there may very well be variables that you are not considering and cannot possibly know of given your intrinsically finite knowledge and wisdom.

We’re not interested in possibility though. It’s possible that any number of things we don’t actually believe. What’s interesting here is whether God probably has moral justifications for the inscrutable evils we observe. As my argument demonstrated, the probability of skeptical theism given our evidence is near 0. i.e., there’s no reason to believe it.

In any case i don’t think you fully understand Bayesian reasoning and its proper application. You are just like people who think that they can bring science to a discussion about metaphysical absolutes, as if it has any relevance to the subject.

Bayes’ theorem can apply to any conditional probability, it really doesn’t matter what its content is. As noted earlier, the application of Bayes’ theorem to the problem of evil is quite prevalent, I’m not doing anything peculiar here.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ThinkSapien,

First things first, have a safe to trip as you leave your home country. I remember the first time I left the US and my wife and I took a trip to Spain. We had a delightful time … but, there are real differences between the US and Spain. When we returned, we needed to wait in line for US Customs. I still remember what the agent said to us, “Welcome home.” It really did feel great to be back in the US.

Ah, now on to the serious work…

I didn’t say remove, I said not include. The difference is subtle.

I stand corrected. In the context of your statement, I honestly fail to understand the distinction you have made. I see no practical difference.

I would first ask questions on semantics in the question, especially around the word “reason” before getting into a discussion on that.

I think there are about as many definitions of the work ‘reason’ as there are philosphers!

But, since you did not offer one - let me provide the first item for a discussion - and it will need the focus of atheism since that is the thread we are on. I suggest that this link would be a good place to start: newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm

Questions on the logic of that statement aside, I’ll make a comment on my position in hopes of making it better known. I’ve got a desire to gain knowledge about the world around me. If there are gods in this world then they are something about which I would like to know to.

Do I understand you correctly that you are only interested in knowing about multiple gods?In my sophomore year of college, (and this was a Catholic College) we had an excellent knowledge of the ancient Greek gods as part of our Humanities program. So, is something like this what you have in mind?

I have got no desire for or against being an atheist, monotheist, polytheist, deists, pandeist, so on. Since I don’t hold beliefs of any gods under some definitions I am considered an atheists (under others “agnostic atheist”, “agnostic”, “ignostic” and so on. We’d have to agree on some meanings to nail that one down).

You know, I found this ambivalence the most troubling part of your post. You appear not to care about anything. At the very least, I think this sets up a real conflict with your previous statement about IF there are gods you would like to know about them. As I appreciate your statement, you could not care less which way any fact points. So, lets see if we can agree on some terms. There really is no substutute for clear and comprehensive definitions! Check these four out:

Atheist;-
newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm

Monotheist;- newadvent.org/cathen/10499a.htm

Polytheist;- newadvent.org/cathen/12223b.htm (this link contains many sub-links)

Deist;-
newadvent.org/cathen/04679b.htm

There is really an abundance of material here and I am confident you will find just what you are looking for.

I don’t have any desire to “maintain [my] current position” of not holding a belief in any gods. Nor do I have any desire acquire a belief in gods.

Obviously another subtle distinction… The way I see it, either you do or you don’t but you can not say you do and then eliminate your choices. The next step will be trying to discuss the meaning of meaning … and this probably won’t gain much traction either. I suggest you look for knowledge with gusto and enthusiasm - this apparent indifference to what is or might be out there will surely undo any gains that you thnk you have made. As an example, I honestly believe that most people live their lives focused on the fact that Pi is an irrational number. It is. So what? Let’s move on. But it is a totally different reality to know that there is One God Who sent His Only Begotten Son to suffer and die for our sins because He loved us! Now, this calls for a life changing response. And I certainly invite you to move in that direction.

God bless

 

[karebear92]

For the same reason fire fighters rush into burning buildings, police officers enter dangerous locations, paramedics rush to the scene of a shooting where the shooter is still at large or an earthquake where no one knows what the heck is happening and buildings are falling everywhere, for the same reason ordinary people do extrodinary things every day - many with no belief in any kind of god, but with powerful empathetic responses and a natural, healthy, sometimes overwhealming desire to protect the needy and the vulnerable.

And the consequences of using your free will in a way that He does not approve of? Eternal punishment Im sorry but to me that is the very essence of how a ruthless dictator would behave. ie please, I give you life and free will, you can do as you please, but if you ACTUALLY use your free will in a way I dont approve, then its eternal damnation for you

Sarah x

First, sorry about my poor language in my last post. I didn’t have time to proofread.

Also, evolution is accepted in Christianity, so brain patterns and things of that nature are perfectly accepted. Homosexuality and pedophilia are even accepted as disorders rather than lifestyles (by most). It is the action that we consider sinful, so unless the man with a brain tumor was physically forced to do it, i.e. he had no control of his actions, which would affect the culpability of his actions (it wouldn’t be a mortal sin), then that isn’t a problem at all within Catholicism.

My point, however, is how does one rationalize kin selection into the scenario I presented. Shouldn’t one save their brother or sister before the child?

I don’t see how evolution can explain why someone would run into a burning building to risk their lives to save others. The purpose of life is not to have a good one but to reproduce and pass on their genetics, which is what kin selection is essentially about. Running into a burning building contradicts the typical form of evolution. Another question regarding the evolution of morality is why do many people not want children. Are we above evolution? And if so, for how long have we been rational enough to dismiss our natural tendencies?

As for the last part, wouldn’t evolution have weeded out any type of nonconformity? Did we not agree that most every sin hurts someone else either directly or indirectly? Wouldn’t you expect a loving God to give those who do wrong a chance to correct themselves, but award eternal paradise for those who do not sin? It seems pretty rational to me. Evil cannot exist in eternal paradise, so eventually, if God grants us free will, evil has to separate from good, or good will be eternally punished because of evil, which is what you seemingly have a problem with in the first place.

Kara x (That really is my name.)

 

[MindOverMatter2]

We’re not interested in possibility though. It’s possible that any number of things we don’t actually believe. What’s interesting here is whether God probably has moral justifications for the inscrutable evils we observe.

First of all, you have to have all the variables relevant to that possibility before you can determine its probability. You say its improbable, but in reference to what? Your limited imagination and wisdom? Thats hardly a refutation, and is largely circular because you have to assume that you know everything that an infinity wise and all-knowing good God would do. Also you keep on ignoring the variable that sometimes it can be harmful to prevent evil if you include the fact that freewill is an objective good that ought to be preserved. If man can only have heaven by choosing freely then it follows that freedom is the greatest good, and since God is heaven, God cannot undermine that Good. Therefore the existence of evil in the world is highly probable given freewill.

Secondly, in-order for faith to be relevant, i don’t need to present its probability, i merely have to show that there is no logical/necessary contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of a good creator who intends people to freely choose heaven. The question of whether God exists or not, is something different. If i have good reason for thinking that God exists and that there is such a thing as objective good and evil, then i don’t need to justify myself to Bayesian reasoning at all, since i merely have to show why the existence of an objective good necessitates the existence of God.

You can ignore that if you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you have only demonstrated your unwillingness to have faith in Gods goodness.

 

[atheistgirl]

I don’t see how evolution can explain why someone would run into a burning building to risk their lives to save others. The purpose of life is not to have a good one but to reproduce and pass on their genetics, which is what kin selection is essentially about. Running into a burning building contradicts the typical form of evolution.

What else would explain it? Belief in God? Not all firefighters have a belief.

freethoughtfirefighters.org/?art=214

Heres some very short but none the less interesting links to evolution and altruism:

livescience.com/15451-chimps-humanlike-altruism.html

livescience.com/10979-toddlers-altruism.html

livescience.com/4515-selfless-chimps-shed-light-evolution-altruism.html

Did we not agree that most every sin hurts someone else either directly or indirectly?

Yes, doing wrong hurts people, one way or another, including the person doing the wrong.

Wouldn’t you expect a loving God to give those who do wrong a chance to correct themselves, but award eternal paradise for those who do not sin?

My understanding is that everyone is a sinner so God has to judge everyone, even though, as I understand it, He allowed the devil to enter the world in the first place I find the story of Job perhaps the most upsetting, where poor Job is just a pawn in a bet between God and the Devil

It seems pretty rational to me. Evil cannot exist in eternal paradise, so eventually, if God grants us free will, evil has to separate from good, or good will be eternally punished because of evil, which is what you seemingly have a problem with in the first place.

I have no problem understanding peoples goodness or lack of goodness in my real world. I have a huge problem with it all when God is brought into the equation for some of the reasons I refered to in previous posts.

Sarah x

 

[Perplexity]

First of all, you have to have all the variables relevant to that possibility before you can determine its probability. You say its improbable, but in reference to what? Your limited imagination and wisdom? Thats hardly a refutation, and is largely circular because you have to assume that you know everything that an infinity wise and all-knowing good God would do.

I can’t hardly make sense of this. I’d recommend studying Bayes’ theorem, and what the numbers represent. I don’t understand the position you’re attacking, nor the attacks you’re leveling against it. In any case, what you said above has no relevance to my objection to skeptical theism.

Also you keep on ignoring the variable that sometimes it can be harmful to prevent evil if you include the fact that freewill is an objective good that ought to be preserved. If man can only have heaven by choosing freely then it follows that freedom is the greatest good, and since God is heaven, God cannot undermine that Good. Therefore the existence of evil in the world is highly probable given freewill.

I’ve been going after skeptical theism. Why are you bringing up a free-will defense? Skeptical theism precludes defenses and theodicies like this bruh.

Secondly, in-order for faith to be relevant, i don’t need to present its probability, i merely have to show that there is no logical/necessary contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of a good creator who intends people to freely choose heaven. The question of whether God exists or not, is something different. If i have good reason for thinking that God exists and that there is such a thing as objective good and evil, then i don’t need to justify myself to Bayesian reasoning at all, since i merely have to show why the existence of an objective good necessitates the existence of God.

You’ve lost me. Why are you talking about faith and probability now? I’m talking about skeptical theism and probability lol.

You can ignore that if you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you have only demonstrated your unwillingness to have faith in Gods goodness.

You’re all over the place lol.

 

[karebear92]

What else would explain it? Belief in God? Not all firefighters have a belief.

freethoughtfirefighters.org/?art=214

Heres some very short but none the less interesting links to evolution and altruism:

livescience.com/15451-chimps-humanlike-altruism.html

livescience.com/10979-toddlers-altruism.html

livescience.com/4515-selfless-chimps-shed-light-evolution-altruism.html

I am not saying that people do it because they believe in God but because there is an intrinsic morality that impacts how most people act.

I am not denying altruism or the evolution of it. I am simply questioning why one would help an innocent child rather than their kin. How would that evolve. It obviously exists, but I don’t understand how that could evolve into human nature. I believe that we have an unexplainable morality. Once again, however, I could be wrong, as evolution is not denied by the church in any way.

My understanding is that everyone is a sinner so God has to judge everyone, even though, as I understand it, He allowed the devil to enter the world in the first place I find the story of Job perhaps the most upsetting, where poor Job is just a pawn in a bet between God and the Devil
Sarah x

Your understanding of what evil isn’t exactly in line with Catholic thinking. God did not create evil, but rather evil is a distancing or turning away from Him. I believe St. Augustine addresses this in Confessions. He knows all and allows evil to happen, but He cannot and does not create it. Just like humans, Satan had a free will. He did not limit it for the same reason He didn’t limit us. Satan separated himself from God because of his own pride and selfishness. If God did not allow it then He would have had to limit free will, which I already have discussed my objection to. Everyone is a sinner and God does judge everyone, including Satan. In addition, God only uses us for the greater good. He allows us to reject that, however.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I can’t hardly make sense of this. I’d recommend studying Bayes’ theorem, and what the numbers represent. I don’t understand the position you’re attacking, nor the attacks you’re leveling against it. In any case, what you said above has no relevance to my objection to skeptical theism.

This happens when you don’t read my argument properly; you end up making a straw-man of what i said.

I’ve been going after skeptical theism.
Why are you bringing up a free-will defense? Skeptical theism precludes defenses and theodicies like this bruh.

You are trying to pigeon hole me in to defending skeptical theism. Why are you making a straw-man of my argument? And while you are at it, why don’t you address my argument?

Here it is again…bruh

Also you keep on ignoring the variable that sometimes it can be harmful to prevent evil if you include the fact that freewill is an objective good that ought to be preserved. If man can only have heaven by choosing freely then it follows that freedom is the greatest good, and since God is heaven, God cannot undermine that Good. **Therefore the existence of evil in the world is highly probable given freewill. **

You’ve lost me. Why are you talking about faith and probability now? I’m talking about skeptical theism and probability lol.

You brought up skeptical theism and all this Bayesian probability baloney.

You’re all over the place lol.

If it is not logically impossible for God to permit the existence of evil and be good at the same time, then estimating the probability that he would or would not permit it becomes meaningless, because no matter what it is never wrong for God to permit the existence of evil. You are making the argument that it is improbable that God would have a good reason not to act. But since you cannot show that it is logically impossible for evil and a good God to co-exist, you have to give reference to that which would make it improbable. Otherwise it is an arbitrary improbability.

You have not given reference to anything that would make it improbable and therefore your argument fails.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I stand corrected. In the context of your statement, I honestly fail to understand the distinction you have made. I see no practical difference.

Not positing or assuming the interaction of gods is different from being able to perceive the interaction of gods but omitting their actions.
tqualey;8582716:

Do I understand you correctly that you are only interested in knowing about multiple gods?

Not quite. I’ve not limited consideration a specific type of theism (mono-, poly-, or the other -theism) nor to specific god concepts that fall under any of those classifications (ex: from monotheist religions the concepts Allah, Yahweh, or the other “one true gods”).

You know, I found this ambivalence the most troubling part of your post. You appear not to care about anything.

I care about many things, many of which are not relevant to this post. So they are not mentioned.

At the very least, I think this sets up a real conflict with your previous statement about IF there are gods you would like to know about them.

More on this in a moment.

As I appreciate your statement, you could not care less which way any fact points. So, lets see if we can agree on some terms. There really is no substutute for clear and comprehensive definitions! Check these four out:

I read through the first part of each page. Having read them I will assume that when ever you use these words you are referring to the meanings as described in those pages. But at the same time when I write I recognize that those reading my words may not apply those same definitions or the ones I have in mind. My stance could also be labeled differently based on the god concept that one is applying. The definitions at the links you provided seemed to be biased towards a specific god concept and much of how it describes “atheism” is more similar to what I understand to be “antitheism.”

A summary of my understanding of some of these words can be found here youtu.be/S-BQVmvulmQ?t=20s (video)

Obviously another subtle distinction… The way I see it, either you do or you don’t but you can not say you do and then eliminate your choices.

If there were a bomb in my mailbox I would like to know about it. I have no reason to believe there is a bomb in my mail box so I’m not to worried about it. I do not aspire to believe that there is a bomb in my mail box. Nor am I trying to maintain not holding a belief that there is a bomb in my mail box. My position on the matter is subordinate to the information that confronts me on the matter.

If there were gods I would like to know about it. I’ve got no reason to believe there are any gods so I am not to worried about it. I do not aspire to believe there there are any gods. Nor am I trying to maintain not holding beliefs that there are any gods. My position on the matter is subordinate to the information that confronts me on the matter.

The next step will be trying to discuss the meaning of meaning … and this probably won’t gain much traction either.

I didn’t have to interact in these forums for very long before I realized that there are a lot of disagreements rooted in those engaging in conversations interpreting words differently. There’s a thread going on right now where the topic has switched to objective/subjective values. Upon inquiring what was meant by “objective” it has been found that there are various differing definitions being used by different people in the conversation, and those definitions are not all compatible with each other.

But it is a totally different reality to know that there is One God Who sent His Only Begotten Son to suffer and die for our sins because He loved us! Now, this calls for a life changing response. And I certainly invite you to move in that direction.

If that is about me than for the sake of accuracy I think changing “to know” to the text “to have been told” would be fitting. I’ve been told about a lot of different one true ways and different incompatible duties from one true gods.

 

[atheistgirl]

Your understanding of what evil isn’t exactly in line with Catholic thinking.

I freely confess it probably isnt

God did not create evil,

I would question that. If God created everything, that ‘‘everything’’ must include evil, or the possibility of evil. God created Satan, evil is supposed to originate with satan (I think Im right in saying that) but God being all knowing must have known satan would reject Him and thus be the foundation stone of evil. And what is much worse, to me anyhow, is that innocent people are made to suffer horrifically because of this every second of every day.

God only uses us for the greater good.

Do you think God is using me for the greater good? Someone who says there is insufficient evidence to believe as others do? The answer could be interesting, because if He is not, then he doesnt use everyone for the greater good, so why then would He judge me, and if he IS using me for the greater good - then it’s against my will and knowledge, something you say he wouldnt do. Also if I am being used for the greater good, well, surely in theory then I have nothing to worry about come judgement day? But I will be very cross about being used against my will

Sarah x

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MOM2,

There is a certain element of frustration that seems to be growing … and before it reaches ‘critical mass’, let me offer an observation and a suggestion. I think you are being taunted … I suggest you just relax and move forward.

Seriously, he is not responding to your arguments… and ‘Straw Man Construction’ is all he can build. All atheists have is the improbability of their position. After all the smoke has cleared the argument is reduced to, “I do not believe because I do not believe”. The argument I have presented about the objective and readily obserable patterns throughout the universe pointing to the existence of the Master Patern Maker (God) has not been refuted. All that comes out from the group waving the Atheist banner is, “Everything just happened and here we are!” If this argument were any more lame, it would be bedriddern! What keeps it going is that simple exercise of free will.

My very limited sample size is the two atheists I knew in college - and both had major behavior problems that they did not want to change. So, they just changed their belief structure to match their behavior and suddenly no more anxiety!

I do not know what happened to either of them. My prayer is that they have responded to the Grace of God.

God bless

If it is not logically impossible for God to permit the existence of evil and be good at the same time, then estimating the probability that he would or would not permit it becomes meaningless, because no matter what it is never wrong for God to permit the existence of evil. You are making the argument that it is improbable that God would have a good reason not to act. But since you cannot show that it is logically impossible for evil and a good God to co-exist, you have to give reference to that which would make it improbable. Otherwise it is an arbitrary improbability.

You have not given reference to anything that would make it improbable and therefore your argument fails.

 

[karebear92]

I freely confess it probably isnt

I would question that. If God created everything, that ‘‘everything’’ must include evil, or the possibility of evil. God created Satan, evil is supposed to originate with satan (I think Im right in saying that) but God being all knowing must have known satan would reject Him and thus be the foundation stone of evil. And what is much worse, to me anyhow, is that innocent people are made to suffer horrifically because of this every second of every day

God created the possibility of evil by giving us freewill, but it is our use (as well as Satan’s) of that freewill that evil exists. In other words, He made us perfect, as He is perfect and cannot create evil, but because He loves us He gave us freewill so that we can either accept or deny his love, and evil is denying that love. So He created the possibility of evil, but only as a product of the greater good, which is our ability to choose Him.

Do you think God is using me for the greater good? Someone who says there is insufficient evidence to believe as others do? The answer could be interesting, because if He is not, then he doesnt use everyone for the greater good, so why then would He judge me, and if he IS using me for the greater good - then it’s against my will and knowledge, something you say he wouldnt do. Also if I am being used for the greater good, well, surely in theory then I have nothing to worry about come judgement day? But I will be very cross about being used against my will

Sarah x

No! You are not for the greater good!

Of course you are here for the greater good. God made you out of love and will continue to love you for eternity, regardless of your acceptance of Him. He does not really damn people to hell as much as it is people choose to reject Him and in doing so ask for hell. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that you are going to hell or anything of the sort, as there is vincible and invincible ignorance, and God is not bound by the laws of man etc.

But yes, you are for the greater good. Whether it is to strengthen somebody else’s faith, have children, or simply prove that people can engage in a civil conversation even regarding their faith. To bring about greater good does not require one’s consent. And you clearly aren’t a murderer, rapist, adulterer, lying, either. If you were then you would be right in saying that it is against your will, but I don’t think you want to be a isolated out in the middle of Antarctica and only interact to wreak havoc on everyone ever. Simply by interacting with God’s creation you are submitting yourself to the greater good.

Now you and only you are accountable for your actions. God can turn a bad situation into a good one down the road, but He cannot make anyone accept Him, which is kind of a prerequisite to being with Him in heaven.

 

[atheistgirl]

The argument I have presented about the objective and readily obserable patterns throughout the universe pointing to the existence of the Master Patern Maker (God) has not been refuted. All that comes out from the group waving the Atheist banner is, “Everything just happened and here we are!” If this argument were any more lame, it would be bedriddern! What keeps it going is that simple exercise of free will.

Erm, I think that’s slightly over egging your situation if I may say so

I dont think youve ‘‘proved’’ a master plan maker by simply stating you observe a pattern in things
I think all youve done is say there is a pattern, so there must be a pattern maker. That doesnt necessarily follow, BUT, even if it did, your making a monumental and unsupported leap to go from pattern maker, to your God. If I took it at face value the patterns dont indicate evolutionary process but rather a design maker, theres no evidence to support that divine super being is your God. It could be any other number of Gods of the other major religions that ALSO claim their God is the supreme pattern maker.

I could take what you say, on face value, and replace the word God with Super Intelligent Interstellar being from the planet Zog. Assuming the truth of a pattern maker does not logically lead me then to a personal, caring, triune God. Just that a pattern maker exists. No more than that.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

No! You are not for the greater good!

At this precise moment in time - my husband agrees with you

Sarah x