How do you feel about atheists?

[Darryl_Revok]

It certainly isn’t a contradiction, eh? God *could *exist even in an immeasureably evil world.

Evil exists therefore no God is a nonsequitur.

However, the existence of great pain and suffering in the world is I believe a legitimate question posed by atheists. It appeals to our emotions. It is a problem for believers, and one that needs to be addressed.

Of course, I do believe that it has been addressed and the Problem of Evil is simply an emotional appeal, similar to a child asking, “Why do I have to get shots? You’re a big Meanie for making me get them, Father!”

First off, I’m an atheist, but I don’t use the problem of evil as a basis for my atheism.

That said, if God did exist, then the existence of evil would demand a reappraisal of His nature. None of this “God is Infinite Love” nonsense. Something like the Gnostic Demiurge: God as malicious, capricious jerk. This is not without precedent in the Bible. I mean, He sent a bunch of bears to attack a group of kids who were mocking one of his prophets. I always felt the use of bears points to a streak of absurd humor in His nature.

 

[estesbob]

First off, I’m an atheist, but I don’t use the problem of evil as a basis for my atheism.

That said, if God did exist, then the existence of evil would demand a reappraisal of His nature. None of this “God is Infinite Love” nonsense. Something like the Gnostic Demiurge: God as malicious, capricious jerk. This is not without precedent in the Bible. I mean, He sent a bunch of bears to attack a group of kids who were mocking one of his prophets. I always felt the use of bears points to a streak of absurd humor in His nature.

God loves us so much he gave us free will.

 

[estesbob]

I can, I can measure the electrical impulses.

So love is reduced to electrical impulses??? When I pray Ill bet you can find a changes in the electrical impulses in my brain also. Does that prove there is a God?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jelrak TB View Post
While an argument might give evidence to or support an alleged proof,

This is a nonsensical statement. “An alleged proof”?

Is it truly nonsensical? Is claiming to provide a proof and actually providing one the same? Further, is not a proof merely to be considered alleged until it is actually stated?

Quote:
it is not, in and of itself, automatically to be considered proof.

Now, this is indeed true.

But then again no one has posited that an argument is “automatically to be considered proof.”

Well there is an individual who claimed:

“That’s a tautology because proof for God, being an immaterial being, is given through arguments.”

There is now a suspicion that we may simply be misunderstanding one another.

…the fact that two might argue over God’s existence may not automatically assume that either one is supporting their claim with any proof…

And this, again, is nonsensical.

When one might dismiss an argument as ‘nonsensical’ it is quite appreciated if a reason might be given so that a better clarity of any potential misunderstanding might be gained. Currently in responding in such a way it is unclear if you may simply not understand the point at hand or be making a claim that it is not valid. If not valid, kindly explain why.

Regardless, my assertion, once again, was merely that an argument supported by action was more likely to promote and affirm the evidence presented in the argument…rather than an argument without such action…if you disagree with such an assessment, kindly indicate why…?

Could you give an example of what you mean. What’s an argument that’s supported by action vs an argument without action?

If a man might be claimed to be the kindest person in the room, is such an argument not greatly augmented by having witnessed his great kindness in times past? If no such witnessing may have ever taken place, how might the original claim be properly substantiated? If not substantiated, does it not merely appear to be an opinion? Certainly merely stating an opinion is not to be confused with a proof…?

So when I agreed with a previous poster that evidence of Christianity’s veracity is best witnessed through the acts of its members rather than by argument alone, I was acknowledging that I am most attracted to the claims of Christianity when I have had first hand experience with its positive fruits…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Yet another response to the OP:

All of us are depraved, wretched sinners. One difference between the deeply reflective Christian and the atheist seems to be that the Christian is aware of it and aware of the remedy-- Jesus Christ. Perhaps some atheists realize how depraved mankind is but instead of turning to the light of God they put their trust in works of man or turn to the bleakness of existentialism and nihilism-- utterly man-made philosophies that reflect man’s depravity rather than the goodness of God.

“The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him.” (John 1:9-10, NRSV)

Kindly understand that I mean no disrespect–but wish merely to illuminate how an atheist might actually think–when I suggest that you might quite possibly be correct in your assessment. It is quite true that some atheists do feel a degree of concern with regards to the depravity of mankind…in fact they might be so concerned that they may indeed place their trust in works of man to solve it…but please understand that the atheist considers religion to be one such work…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

It certainly isn’t a contradiction, eh? God *could *exist even in an immeasureably evil world.

Evil exists therefore no God is a nonsequitur.

However, the existence of great pain and suffering in the world is I believe a legitimate question posed by atheists. It appeals to our emotions. It is a problem for believers, and one that needs to be addressed.

Of course, I do believe that it has been addressed and the Problem of Evil is simply an emotional appeal, similar to a child asking, “Why do I have to get shots? You’re a big Meanie for making me get them, Father!”

I would tend to agree with you that evil is necessary for good to be meaningful. Where I might begin to question is where it might come to degree. For when a neighbor backed over her 18 month old child who had slipped out of her older daughter’s arms and run towards the car to be with his mother, a great evil was perpetrated. That the young daughter, age of 9, was the only one able to hold the crushed and bleeding child while the mother sped to the hospital certainly reinforced her sense of responsibility. That her younger brother died certainly made the evil final. That it wracked the mother with guilt both for her indiscretion in allowing her daughter to initially hold the child and also due to her great responsibility in backing over him certainly drove the point home daily.

The desperate prayers of the mother who had been deeply religious appeared to fall on deaf ears that day. It is unfortunate that the great evil of her running over the child could not have resulted in either:

1. An increase in or validation of her faith due to a seemingly miraculous recovery, rather than an ebbing of her faith due to the horror of seeing other young children the same age as her son in the seats around her…robbing her of any peace.
2. A closer bond between mother and daughter rather than a constant suspicion of guilt and recrimination.
3. A greater sense of empathy instead of a terrible sense of bitterness.

It is not my position here to place some blame for such a tragedy on God, for clearly the above was simply an accident. What does seem to be somewhat out of place, however, is how allowing such an evil may have been necessary in order to support the mother’s free will to react too slowly in a vital moment…further, it is to question how an equal or greater good might be properly imagined to now proceed from such a shattered family…?

 

[Faithdancer]

Some unbelievers seem to view Christianity as mere superstition, a relic of the past that has no place in a world where science is deified. They might even believe that Christians are ignorant and uneducated. Here is a list of illustrious, “hard” scientists (physicists, biologists, geologists, etc.) that utterly belies such assertions:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science#2001.E2.80.93today_.2821st_century.29 :tiphat:

How is it that someone who wins a Nobel or Templeton prize, etc. can not only believe in Christ, but also find his or her faith to be in perfect harmony with science and its many discoveries?

 

[Faithdancer]

I don’t think the world is wretched . And if it is God didn’t make it so, man did . You really do not have a even basic understanding of theology.

Yes estesbob, it’s the usual argument based on the usual lack of theological understanding. It’s essentially part of the “problem of evil” argument which tries to reduce God to something less than what He is. And you are right, the world, as part of God’s creation, is wonderfully designed. It is mankind that is wretched and needs salvation. Fortunately, we have a Redeemer…:getholy:

 

[estesbob]

I would tend to agree with you that evil is necessary for good to be meaningful. Where I might begin to question is where it might come to degree. For when a neighbor backed over her 18 month old child who had slipped out of her older daughter’s arms and run towards the car to be with his mother, a great evil was perpetrated. That the young daughter, age of 9, was the only one able to hold the crushed and bleeding child while the mother sped to the hospital certainly reinforced her sense of responsibility. That her younger brother died certainly made the evil final. That it wracked the mother with guilt both for her indiscretion in allowing her daughter to initially hold the child and also due to her great responsibility in backing over him certainly drove the point home daily.

The desperate prayers of the mother who had been deeply religious appeared to fall on deaf ears that day. It is unfortunate that the great evil of her running over the child could not have resulted in either:

1. An increase in or validation of her faith due to a seemingly miraculous recovery, rather than an ebbing of her faith due to the horror of seeing other young children the same age as her son in the seats around her…robbing her of any peace.
2. A closer bond between mother and daughter rather than a constant suspicion of guilt and recrimination.
3. A greater sense of empathy instead of a terrible sense of bitterness.

It is not my position here to place some blame for such a tragedy on God, for clearly the above was simply an accident. What does seem to be somewhat out of place, however, is how allowing such an evil may have been necessary in order to support the mother’s free will to react too slowly in a vital moment…further, it is to question how an equal or greater good might be properly imagined to now proceed from such a shattered family…?

It is a ongoing tragedy only to those who don’t believe in afterlife. All of us are going to die. The circumstances of our death are really irrelevant if one views death as just another stage of our ongoing development.

 

[Faithdancer]

Kindly understand that I mean no disrespect–but wish merely to illuminate how an atheist might actually think–when I suggest that you might quite possibly be correct in your assessment. It is quite true that some atheists do feel a degree of concern with regards to the depravity of mankind…in fact they might be so concerned that they may indeed place their trust in works of man to solve it…but please understand that the atheist considers religion to be one such work…

I do understand that the atheist considers religion to be a human invention, Jelrak. That is, sadly, a temporary victory for the power of evil. And what greater example of that than Karl Marx, and all of those who have assumed political power in his name?

 

[ffg]

Why do you think we can’t understand that with biology, I have a friend who monitors risk assessment and decisions making in rats. Rats can also ignore messages from the their bodies, I take it you do not believe they have a soul at work and free will?

I would need more information about the test of the rats ignoring their bodies. However, with the limited information -

I do not believe a hungry rat that has food in front of it, no matter how many choices, ignores the message of ‘hungry’. I do believe you can tease or train a hungry rat to move toward a certain food or smell.

With a hungry human you can put multiple choices in front of them and they can ignore all of them because they decide that they just don’t want to eat. No teasing or training needed.

I can’t speak to God’s relationship with animals other than deducing a bit of it from God’s relationship to humans. If humans are made in the image and likeness of God, there seems to be enough variance that animals are not. If they were, it seems such information would have been a part of the revelation.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Contarini]

It is a ongoing tragedy only to those who don’t believe in afterlife. All of us are going to die. The circumstances of our death are really irrelevant if one views death as just another stage of our ongoing development.

I don’t think that’s an orthodox Christian view.

Death is not just a stage of our ongoing development. Christ defeated death on the Cross.

If death, including the tragic death of children, is just OK no matter what the circumstances, then why are we against abortion? Why are we against anything?

God does not want parents to kill their own children, accidentally or on purpose. Such deaths are an expression of the brokenness of creation–they are the work of Satan and not of God.

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

I don’t think that’s an orthodox Christian view.

Death is not just a stage of our ongoing development. Christ defeated death on the Cross.

If death, including the tragic death of children, is just OK no matter what the circumstances, then why are we against abortion? Why are we against anything?

God does not want parents to kill their own children, accidentally or on purpose. Such deaths are an expression of the brokenness of creation–they are the work of Satan and not of God.

Edwin

Death is not the end. Once one realizes that seeming tragedies become a lot less tragic.

 

[Faithdancer]

I don’t think that’s an orthodox Christian view.

Death is not just a stage of our ongoing development. Christ defeated death on the Cross.

If death, including the tragic death of children, is just OK no matter what the circumstances, then why are we against abortion? Why are we against anything?

God does not want parents to kill their own children, accidentally or on purpose. Such deaths are an expression of the brokenness of creation–they are the work of Satan and not of God.

Edwin

I think you are drawing a distinction between the untimely death of children, including children in utero, and the death of someone who has lived a full life. I totally agree that the former is tragic, and the latter is inevitable. estesbob would be one of the last people here to argue that abortion is anything but satanic.

 

[Contarini]

Actually no, it is not. And were was I ever dismissive to people of 1000 years ago? I was simply explaining that we cannot know what we will be capable of in the future and that our understanding of the cosmos is ever increasing. With the example that we have a far greater understanding of the universe that people did 1000 years ago.

If you want to join the discussion in a constructive manner, instead of looking for quote mines to attack and making baseless accusations, why not go and read the discussion.

You seem to be arguing that even if you can’t explain every factor that causes human choice, eventually we will be able to because eventually we learned what stars were made of. You also seemed to be implying that people 1000 years ago not only wouldn’t know what stars were made of but would find the very idea of knowing inconceivable.

But the basic problem here is that whatever we may learn in future, as long as it is purely material then the objection will remain–that human choice is in fact an illusion.

Similarly, the question of what the stars are made of is a lot less important than the question of whether the stars simply are what they are made of. Of course many modern Christians, along with atheists, would assume that this is the case–the ancient and medieval view that stars and planets have intelligences is rejected by most except for “woo-woo” New-Age types (which include such a serious scientist as James Lovelock, in the case of the planet we happen to live on, but the view is still treated with ridicule).

Edwin

 

[Faithdancer]

Death is not the end. Once one realizes that seeming tragedies become a lot less tragic.

Yes and when it comes to little children, Jesus was pretty clear about His great love for them. Else why would He tell us that we must all become as little children, if we hope for Heaven?:angel1:

 

[Jelrak_TB]

It is a ongoing tragedy only to those who don’t believe in afterlife. All of us are going to die. The circumstances of our death are really irrelevant if one views death as just another stage of our ongoing development.

Yet who among the faithful might greet the death of a child with pleasure? Further, if the death of a child is not to be considered as evil, is there truly evil in the world?

 

[estesbob]

Yet who among the faithful might greet the death of a child with pleasure? Further, if the death of a child is not to be considered as evil, is there truly evil in the world?

From the childs standpoint they are experiencing the joy of being with God. . Now if the death was intentionally afflicted the actions of the person who killed them are evil without a doubt

 

[MrEmpiricism]

You seem to be arguing that even if you can’t explain every factor that causes human choice, eventually we will be able to because eventually we learned what stars were made of. You also seemed to be implying that people 1000 years ago not only wouldn’t know what stars were made of but would find the very idea of knowing inconceivable.

But the basic problem here is that whatever we may learn in future, as long as it is purely material then the objection will remain–that human choice is in fact an illusion.

Similarly, the question of what the stars are made of is a lot less important than the question of whether the stars simply are what they are made of. Of course many modern Christians, along with atheists, would assume that this is the case–the ancient and medieval view that stars and planets have intelligences is rejected by most except for “woo-woo” New-Age types (which include such a serious scientist as James Lovelock, in the case of the planet we happen to live on, but the view is still treated with ridicule).

Edwin

Nope what I arguing is that

A. Just because we do not understand something now does not mean we never will
B. Just because we do not understand something does not mean a god has anything to do with it, if one wants to present that theory then they must demonstrate it to the same standards of any other sound explanation.

 

[estesbob]

Nope what I arguing is that

A. Just because we do not understand something now does not mean we never will
B. Just because we do not understand something does not mean a god has anything to do with it, if one wants to present that theory then they must demonstrate it to the same standards of any other sound explanation.

So we have to take it on faith?