I am an atheist

[Aleii]

There is nothing in the narrative to indicate that anyone that was swept away in the flood was good or innocent and thereby treated unjustly.

So there happened to be no children under the age of reason there, eh?

This is not an overnight issue and the men of the times had plenty of opportunity to turn to God.

God knows exactly what will bring his people home. You underestimate god to say that he tried and failed.

You can’t even see that the Aztecs were evil. You separate their evil religious practices from the people involved in them.

I condemn the direct cause of their evil works – their religion. This means that if you take away the direct cause, you can still find a good person inside. This means there is a solution, there is a way to rehabilitate, their children are not condemnable, especially if they are adopted into a different culture. Think of it this way, if a person with a mental illness kills another because of that voice in their head, we don’t send them to jail, we send them to get treatment. I’m sorry if you see me searching for solutions and ways things could be better as absurd, instead of judging a person 100% evil and turning my back on them like you want me to.

You are IMHO looking for any and all reasons to excuse man and condemn God.

and I feel you are looking for the opposite. God is at the highest level imaginable, and should be held to that standard. Humans are not, and need guidance, and can do some incredible things if just given the proper chances and education. Maybe you haven’t seen that happening much in your life? If so I am sorry you have missed out on such uplifting experiences. Maybe you just see me as too optimistic.

Why lay the blame on God?

Because god knew all along, and had the power to change things, but didn’t. If Noah wasn’t doing the trick, why not have Jesus try?

Your view would make it appear that God is in debt to man.

My view is that for the Catholic god to be right, he needs conform to the ways the Church describes him, i.e. all powerful, all knowing, compassionate, benevolent, etc. This story does not conform to that, therefore it leads me to think that either the story must be allegory/cultural/etc, or, that Catholicism is wrong.

Your criticisms set up conflicts that would compromise or perhaps destroy man’s free [will].

Having Jesus walk the earth did not compromise or destroy man’s free will, nor did sending angels to people, nor did god talking to people directly. You have plenty of options when you are all-knowing and all-powerful. Maybe a few that I presented would not work for reasons unknown, but there are so many more out there, that to choose this primitive, uncaring, torturous route, doesn’t make sense.

The narrative says nothing of innocent children and teenagers. If there were teenagers and children swept away in the flood then they were not innocent and they fell into the category of those described as having “evil thoughts continually.” You have not established that man is right and God is wrong or injust.

Again… if you think a child or teenager is evil, you have not given them enough intervention/chances/education. To condemn a child, to stop trying, in my view, is evil. This does both, and god can not be evil. You have not established that god is just in dealing this way with children.

I nearly drowned when I was a child and my experience does not fit with your descriptions. If you are aware that you are dying then death is terrifying to some degree.

did you go unconscious and then almost drown? That is a lot different than being aware and almost drowning. I saved my cousin from drowning and she was terrified and crying as she coughed up water on the nearby grass. I was swept away in an ocean once, and the waves were crashing down on me. It was absolutely terrifying. Somehow I got back in far enough where I was pulled to shore. Horrible experiences. My bringing up of gas is just one example of a much quicker less terrifying way to go. You can increase the concentration of the gas so it works with just one breath instead of two. Then you probably wouldn’t be aware of what is going on and be slipping into unconsciousness as soon as you are figuring it out. I’d rather take 0-5seconds of terror than hours of seeing the rain fall, seeing my family go, at different times, and losing strength and drowning myself. My recommendations show that there is a quicker, more benevolent way to have someone die. Why would you say that death by gas isn’t a more merciful way to go, since its much quicker and less terrifying?

 

[Aleii]

Let’s suppose for example that the flood was the choice by God because it would have the least negative future impact for the environment which would be necessary for Noah’s family and the wild life that would have to survive later.

Less impact on the environment? The flood (would have)had a huge impact! And god could place the gas, and then take it away. It would be done in a manner of minutes. If there was any damage by gas or by the flood, god could easily fix it. I don’t see the point here.

I suspect that your solutions are fraught with other problems that we have not thought of.

Oh by all means, there are probably problems with a lot of them. But the point is that if I, a lowly human, could see so many other ways that would have been better, to say that this terrifying method was the best god could come up with does not seem logical. And to dismiss every other potential solution out there is just as illogical.

Your contentions for possibilities has been dealt with and your own suggested alternative of poisoning the air is probably not an option and could be defined by someone as torturous.

Again, it is by far quicker, and less terrifying way to go. Tell me, would you rather take minutes - hours to drown or have 0-5 seconds of consciousness before death? Which seems worse to you? As I’m not a chemist, there are probably even quicker ways to gas someone than I’ve found with my precursory research.

If God were to vaporize the world today it would not be an immoral act.

So why didn’t he vaporize the world instead of a slow death by flood? THAT is the immoral quandary, the abuse of power, since he had an option to vaporize the world, or cause each person to drop dead, or turn into salt or whatever, but chose a way that caused massive suffering.

Your inability to see the justice in the narrative of Noah escapes me. Likewise, you assume that no mercy or patience was shown by God. You assume that no interventions were made even though Noah and his family would be an example that such was provided. Noah and his family are the only one’s that walked with God and were thus the only ones that took advantage of His mercy.

I know it escapes you, because you are in the mindset that anything god does is good, even if it doesn’t seem fit with the Catholic idea of good. I used to be of that mindset too. It all boils down to this: Option A: Kill with lots of suffering. Option B: Kill with no suffering Option C: other. Option A was chosen and initiated and followed through personally by god.

 

[_A]

Please go back and read my prior posts…particularly those that address the issue of primary and secondary causes. Likewise, please consider everything that has been said about free will.

What Yahweh wants, according to his stated characteristics, is what he gets.
Omnipotence. This means that he has the power to do anything.
Omniscience. This means that he knew just how many abortions he would be causing - even before the parents were born.
Omnibenevolence. Well, I find it laughable. Why does he keep causing all those abortions? I guess the church should re-evaluate their opposition to theraputic abortion. Yahweh does it regularly, and so it must be benevolent.

A quote from the internet…
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? (Epicurus)

 

[_A]

You are making excuses for god and not giving enough credit to the ability of humans to be rehabilitated. I don’t entirely blame you though, I know its just a caveat of religion, a protection, that you must, from the beginning, look at any story as god being 100% right lest you start to suspect that maybe the religion isn’t right, and alter your thoughts in any way possible to achieve that. Until you can openly say that you will be open-minded to any idea possible, we can not accurately discuss this solution.

I just wanted to say, Aleii, that Pax is still here. He (or she) is still listening, and still sharing. The results may not be what you were hoping for, but perhaps Pax feels exactly the same way.
Pax is still here trying to discuss, and that on it’s own is commendable.
There are many religious who would not be comfortable even having this discussion with us.
I have met several skeptics who would not be comfortable discussing with Pax.
Thanks for participating, Pax. Thank you for opposing me. I have learned very little from those who agree with me.

 

[justinthemartyr]

so is killing another human being okay A?

if so, why?

if not, why not?

 

[_A]

so is killing another human being okay A?

if so, why?

if not, why not?

Asking such a vague question deserves an answer such as this.

Yes or no.

You see, I don’t use dogma to make these decisions. There are cases where it is definitely OK to kill a human (say, if he is trying to kill you). There are cases where it is definitely ** not** OK to kill a human (say, if he brings you flowers).

Why are you asking such a vague question? If you are looking for me to say something dogmatic so that you can challenge it, OK. I just don’t think this is a good, clear subject to start with. I don’t think there is an absolute answer I can give you - in killing, I take it case-by-case.

 

[Pax]

Until you can openly say that you will be open-minded to any idea possible, we can not accurately discuss this solution.

You accuse me of assuming that God is always 100% right. Well, that is part of the definition of a Supreme Being. Likewise, you will admit that we as human beings are ignorant of many things, but you will not concede that our ignorance sufficiently extends into the realm of what we are discussing.

I am not making any excuses for God. I think that my presentation makes it clear that you are making excuses for man. Children, teenagers, and adults alike tend to make excuses for their bad behaviors and even get into huge modes of denial. The reason they do this is to avoid negative returns that include “just” punishments. Our own society is a great example. We have become extraordinarily self indulgent and permissive. So much so, that we have 1.25 million abortions a year for profit, and the supporters of this “huge evil” paint it as a “good.” This is just how upside down the thinking is within man.

Personally, I do not think that you grasp just how bad things are around the world today. Nor do I think that you fully grasp the horrors of the 20th century in terms of what man has done to man. Likewise, I do not think that you have a grasp of what ancient-primitive peoples were like. You once again brought up rehabilitation. Try rehabilitating a child molester. Look at how successful all the rehabilitation efforts have been within our criminal justice system. Look at all the failed efforts by psychologists and psychiatrists. Weigh all of those against the small number of success stories. Your optimism about man is way over stated in my opinion. In fact, the data of history is fatal to your optimistic thoughts.

In the fullness of time, God gave us not only the greatest source of rehabilitation, but the only source of true rehabilitation possible. He sent His only son Jesus to die on the cross. The suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus provides that rehabilitation. Without it man would not have the necessary grace to overcome his total inability to lift himself out of sin and to live a life pleasing to God. When someone appreciates Jesus’s death on the cross and comes to know and love the Lord, that person is literally transformed by grace. They are reborn and have access to the hope and grace that will lead them to their final sanctification. Most men do not walk with God.

We live in a terribly broken world and the evidence of that is all around us. The brokeness is due to man. Likewise, man’s vision of the solutions are equally flawed. I am not against examining things nor am I against using critical thinking. I am, however, against drawing conclusions based on premises that are not in keeping with original definitions and the actual evidence presented in the scriptural accounts. Moreover, I simply do not share your overly enthusiastic optimism concerning man’s critical thinking skills or judgments in matters of this nature.

Plato was a great thinker. In Plato’s Republic we read about man’s search and perceptions of what Plato calls “the good.” Plato uses an analogy to describe our perception. He says that our perception is like that of a man sitting in a cave with his back to the entrance. Man can only dimly perceive the shadows that play out upon the walls before him. Plato can rightly see this but you cannot. You give man way too much credit for his critical thinking and his judgments.

You claim that children and teenagers swept away in the flood were innocent. There is no evidence from the biblicl text that anyone lost in the flood was innocent. There is direct evidence that says none of them were innocent. That should clinch it for you right there but instead you push forward to criticize God’s actions based on the potential pain suffered by those that were punished. We all suffer pain throughout our lives and death can be painful. Good people die with pain all the time from natural causes. Why should evil people be spared pain when they die? Punishment is punishment and it isn’t pleasant no matter how humane we make it. I agree that we have a responsibility toward one another based on God’s commands to us.

I do not think that you have established that God has treated man improperly even by human standards, nor have you established that He is obliged to do so.

I am open minded to ideas other than my own. I see no reason to change my views, however, unless a better and more persuasive argument and case has been presented. So far I think we have been doing an okay job at presenting an accurate case from our respective positions and may still have room for further discussion. At this point I am simply unpersuaded. I’m sure from what you have said that you feel the same.

 

[Armor_of_God]

@Others

I think the questions “do you believe in love?” and “what is the evidence for love?” might be almost as trivial to me as “can god make a rock so heavy that even he can’t lift it?” must be to you.

I understand love in terms of the chemical reactions within our bodies, I see no evidence that it is anything more than that. Just because I understand it doesn’t mean I can’t feel it to its fullest extent either, same goes for fear, humour, anger, happiness, etc. Just because you may not understand it doesn’t mean you somehow feel it more, or feel an entirely different level of it. There’s no evidence that there’s some mystical immaterial element to love that you are trying to accuse A (or his sweetheart) of believing in. You can’t even come to a consensus about what that immaterial part might be, which is what I think A was alluding to when he said you could go to 100 different people and get 100 different definitions.

Hi phooney,

Please don’t assume that everyone who comes here with questions comes in swinging, looking for a fight. My questions to A were not accusatory. Rather, they were curious, exploratory questions. I was trying to determine if A approaches all things that appear intangible in life (and yet are spoken of and written about in many different cultures) with the same thought process. I was looking for consistency and common ground.

 

[Armor_of_God]

I don’t know. I had someone else here ask me about it, and they couldn’t offer any bit of a description which we could agree on. I think whatever it is, it is different from person to person.

Hi A,

Do you truly mean that you do not agree with any bit of this? (Even in your definition of love as being action?)

Love is patient
Love is kind
Love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude
It does not insist on its own way
It is not irritable or resentful
It does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things
Love never ends

(I note that I was allowed one attempt at defining love before you were hustling me and my thoughts out the door. What’s up with that?)

 

[Armor_of_God]

By the way, if love isn’t envious, and Yahweh is a jealous god, doesn’t that conflict with earlier statements that ‘god is love’?

Envy is referred to as a capital sin. It is resentment or ill will towards *someone else’s *possessions or good fortune, and has been defined as a “refusal of charity”.

When Yahweh is referred to as a jealous god, this jealousy is for that which is His own, his people. He is jealous when these people whom he created out of love turn away from Him and worship false gods.

 

[Armor_of_God]

A[/I]
]
action

. If I ‘love’ you, it means some action to me. It might be something physical, like sex or a supportive pat on the back. It might mean helping you with your work, so that your day is easier. It might mean dressing and treating your wounds, to ease your pain. It is an imperfect definition, but I would say it means taking action in the interest of another.

Hi A,

I agree with all of the above.

But what motivates these actions?

 

[_A]

Hi phooney,

Please don’t assume that everyone who comes here with questions comes in swinging, looking for a fight. My questions to A were not accusatory. Rather, they were curious, exploratory questions. I was trying to determine if A approaches all things that appear intangible in life (and yet are spoken of and written about in many different cultures) with the same thought process. I was looking for consistency and common ground.

Keep looking, I will try to remember that when your questions seem odd.

 

[_A]

Hi A,

Do you truly mean that you do not agree with any bit of this? (Even in your definition of love as being action?)

I only described the tangible aspects of love which I thought had a chance of being quantified and explored rationally. I didn’t intend it to be a complete definition.

Love is patient

What could this mean? Are you implying that someone impatient does not love? Can not be loved?

Love is kind

With people killing for love, perhaps even starting wars for love, I think it is not always true.

Love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude

Again, I can’t be sure that these are true. Didn’t your bible say that Yahweh is love? Does it not quote Yahweh as saying that ‘I am a jealous god’? Maybe this particular set of definitions can be tossed by both of us.

It does not insist on its own way

Saying ‘it does not insist’ is suggesting that it could insist. It is something that happens in someones mind. Love could also not throw cheese at you. That doesn’t help to define it much.

It is not irritable or resentful

I think again you are treating it like a living being, when it is a characteristic of some living beings.

It does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things
Love never ends

Love ends. Sometimes the evidence of this is simply the living being who felt it dies (stops feeling). Sometimes evidence could be inferred from the divorce rate.

(I note that I was allowed one attempt at defining love before you were hustling me and my thoughts out the door. What’s up with that?)

I have tried to address what you have offered here. It looks like we haev little to agree on as far as definitions go.

 

[_A]

Hi A,

I agree with all of the above.

But what motivates these actions?

For me, the fact that this is the only life there is.
If you read the poem I have been posting, and get in the mood of it (that there is nothing more to the world), you may start to understand why I treat people well, and why I find it so much more impressive without a god in it.

 

[kell0618]

Hi there, I am an atheist. I enjoy computers, astronomy, chess and fishing.
If anyone would like to ask me some questions about any of that, I will be happy to answer.

Hi A,

I can understand agnosticism. To not know if there is a God or not is very understandable. What I don’t understand is how can someone definitively say without reservation that they absolutely know without question that there is no God. Can you explain it in your own words?

Thank you! Peace be with you,

Kelly

 

[justinthemartyr]

If this is the only life there is, then where is the justice for those who have murdered babies, murdered the jews, and the like and were never brought to justice for just punishment?

Or do you not believe in just punishment for those who break the law and murder and rape and molest, including priests.

So a person can live their lives doing whatever they want, good or bad and everyone gets the same thing, a blackout at the moment of death? What about those who never had it remotely good? What about those who lived in luxury and never helped anyone? What about those who were evil in their ways and did the things I mentioned at the beginning of this post?

where is the justice for them?

 

[_A]

Hi A,

I can understand agnosticism. To not know if there is a God or not is very understandable. What I don’t understand is how can someone definitively say without reservation that they absolutely know without question that there is no God. Can you explain it in your own words?

Thank you! Peace be with you,

Kelly

First, we have to get you to say which god you mean. I will guess, for several reasons, that you mean Yahweh of the old testament. That is a ridiculous theory which could not be true, so I reject it. All the other gods which I have investigated are similarly flawed. I am an atheist.
I don’t believe in a god or gods. If there is ever evidence presented to me which suggests it would be more likely to operate under the assumption that there is a god, then I will likely change to operate that way.
Most reasonable people don’t believe in the tooth fairy, either. Yet they cannot offer disproof of such a being. I leave gods in this category.
If you cannot disprove the tooth fairy, it has as much evidencial weight as Yahweh, or any gods I have heard of to date.
I tried to be clear, but if something doesn’t make sense, please feel free to ask.

 

[_A]

If this is the only life there is, then where is the justice for those who have murdered babies, murdered the jews, and the like and were never brought to justice for just punishment?

That justice must be handled here, in the real world.

Or do you not believe in just punishment for those who break the law and murder and rape and molest, including priests.

I believe in preventing a re-offence when you can, and rehabilitated when you can. When dealing with criminals, it would do well to realize that this is also the only life they have.

So a person can live their lives doing whatever they want, good or bad and everyone gets the same thing, a blackout at the moment of death?

Yup. No reason that I shouldn’t go on a crime spree. Except for the fact that I respect your rights as a person. Isn’t that great? I don’t trust anyone who thinks that there must be a god for people to be good. It suggests to me that the minute their god isn’t watching, they will stop being good.

What about those who never had it remotely good?

I think you should do what you can to give them the opportunity for happiness.

What about those who lived in luxury and never helped anyone?

No punishment for them after death. Why do I find this inspirational? Because even with this truth available for everyone, many people still choose to help others. I think that is great.

What about those who were evil in their ways and did the things I mentioned at the beginning of this post?

where is the justice for them?

If they die not getting ‘justice’, then there is no more chance.

Clear enough?

 

[montanaman]

You can’t put God in a test tube. Desire God and you’ll find him. Otherwise, as C.S. Lewis said, it’s a lot like the “mouse’s search for the cat.”

All the best.

 

[_A]

You can’t put God in a test tube. Desire God and you’ll find him. Otherwise, as C.S. Lewis said, it’s a lot like the “mouse’s search for the cat.”

All the best.

What you have said here is one of the central reasons that I distrust others reports of ‘personal evidence’ of their god. Those who do not wish really really hard to believe do not believe.
I have been asking how someone would show the difference between a real personal experience of god and an hallucination of same. It would seem to me that desiring such an hallucination will make you much more likely to hallucinate according to your wishes. How can you be sure that what you are feeling is not an hallucination?
**What steps have you taken to differentiate between the two, knowing that you hallucinate regularly, and knowing that you have a strong desire for just this sort of hallucination?