Scratch an atheist and you will find a skeptic!

[Vera_Ljuba]

The answer to all evil for the Believer is: God’s justice.

God’s “justice” makes the newborns suffer during teething? Is this supposed to be the “joke of the week”?

God makes it right in the end for all of those who have suffered evil, and for all those who have committed evil.

Someone beats up your child and you don’t prevent it ()even though you could). Then give him a lollipop. The “evil” of beating is now “made right”.

But for the atheist, evil is, indeed, an unsolvable problem.

It is not a “philosophical problem”. It is a practical problem. The “problem of evil” is NOT “why does evil exist”, it is “why does evil exist IF there is a loving, caring and omnipotent God”. But you don’t get it, no matter how many times it is explained.

The atheist answer to the question, “Daddy, why did my favorite cousin have to die of cancer?” is only, “Bad things happen in this world, son.”

The answer is: “because there is no loving God to prevent it”.

 

[Bradski]

Just to be clear to the lurkers: the above is NOT Church teaching.

Note the ‘and’:

Childbirth, for example, does not have to be painful. Unless of course you accept church teaching on the fall and God purposely made it so (but hey, that’s a fundamentalist approach and we don’t want to head in that direction again).

That is, if you take the church’s teaching that we had an actual Adam and Eve (actually a very vague proposal, but nevertheless what I would describe as a fundamentalist approach) and following from that there is original sin AND following from that, if you believe that God punished all women with labour pains (not a specific teaching but gleaned from Genesis 3:16), then it is not a result of evolution but has been designed as such.

And that is most definitely a fundamentalist approach. Believed by a surprising number of Catholics. A professor of theology, Dr. Miravalle comments for example:

Furthermore, it follows that Mary’s birth of Jesus would be a painless experience, since pain in childbirth is a punitive effect of original sin (cf. Genesis 3:15). Mary, being free from the penalty of original sin due to her Immaculate Conception, would likewise be free from the penalty of a painful process of childbirth. askacatholic.com/_WebPostings/Answers/2015_06JUN/2015JunWasTheBirthWithNoPain.cfm

 

[PRmerger]

if you believe that God punished all women with labour pains (not a specific teaching but gleaned from Genesis 3:16),

Example # toomanytocount of SAAFAF.

then it is not a result of evolution but has been designed as such.

Well, yeah. The pain is a signal to the mother that she needs to push.

That seems pretty…biological.

And that is most definitely a fundamentalist approach. Believed by a surprising number of Catholics. A professor of theology, Dr. Miravalle comments for example:

Furthermore, it follows that Mary’s birth of Jesus would be a painless experience, since pain in childbirth is a punitive effect of original sin (cf. Genesis 3:15). Mary, being free from the penalty of original sin due to her Immaculate Conception, would likewise be free from the penalty of a painful process of childbirth. askacatholic.com/_WebPostings/Answers/2015_06JUN/2015JunWasTheBirthWithNoPain.cfm

I see. Dr. Miravelle, eh?

You should know by now that one theologian, no matter how learned, does not a Church teaching make.

But, regardless–let’s take this quote and go with it.

I have a request: give me proof that you’ve actually interviewed Dr. Miravelle and gotten his position on this…otherwise what you’re doing is accepting testimony using…faith. You don’t really know what his beliefs are, do you? You’re just relying on good old Fr. Google here.

Oh, and give me a Church document stating: as God has clearly punished women for sinning in the Garden of Eden, we declare that no woman is to mitigate the pain of childbirth through any natural or pharmaceutical means.

(Helpful: a list of loyal-to-the-magisterium Catholic hospitals which refuse to provide epidurals, Lamaze classes, IV pain meds in the US…because, you know, the Church says you can’t).

 

[Bradski]

Well, yeah. The pain is a signal to the mother that she needs to push. That seems pretty…biological.

No. It’s the result of evolutionary changes to women’s bodies. Specifically the changes in the pelvic area resulting from when we started to walk upright as opposed to all fours. Coupled with the fact that we started to evolve larger brains, so we get a bigger head passing through a birth canal that wasn’t designed for it.

That’s what we’d expect from evolution. It makes do. It cobbles a bit of this with a bit of that. It doesn’t start from first principles (like God would have done). It has to work with whatever the situation is at any given time. As I said, it’s a pretty poor design. As compared to the canine or feline systems. Maybe it was a surprise to God that we started to walk on two legs. He certainly didn’t account for it.

Big-brained adults start out life as big-brained babies, so evolution came into conflict with itself. On the one hand, female hominins had to maintain a narrow pelvis with a constricted birth canal in order to walk efficiently on two legs. But at the same time the foetuses they carried were evolving to have larger heads, which were a tighter and tighter fit through those narrow pelvises.

Childbirth became a distressingly painful and potentially lethal business, and it remains so to this day. bbc.com/earth/story/20161221-the-real-reasons-why-childbirth-is-so-painful-and-dangerous

And, incidentally, not lethal enough to affect the propagation of the species.Otherwise you wouldn’t be reading this.

…one theologian, no matter how learned, does not a Church teaching make.

Did someone say it was a church teaching? I think I said that it specifically wasn’t, but simply gleaned from a fundamental reading of Genesis (believed by many Catholics).

Oh, and give me a Church document stating: as God has clearly punished women for sinning in the Garden of Eden, we declare that no woman is to mitigate the pain of childbirth through any natural or pharmaceutical means.

And did someone say that analgesics weren’t allowed? I must have missed that bit as well.

 

[tonyrey]

No. It’s the result of evolutionary changes to women’s bodies. Specifically the changes in the pelvic area resulting from when we started to walk upright as opposed to all fours. Coupled with the fact that we started to evolve larger brains, so we get a bigger head passing through a birth canal that wasn’t designed for it.

That’s what we’d expect from evolution. It makes do. It cobbles a bit of this with a bit of that. It doesn’t start from first principles (like God would have done). It has to work with whatever the situation is at any given time. As I said, it’s a pretty poor design. As compared to the canine or feline systems. Maybe it was a surprise to God that we started to walk on two legs. He certainly didn’t account for it.

The notion that God is in **direct **control of all events in this world was discounted by the sceptic David Hume who was intelligent enough to realise natural laws cannot cater for every contingency.

Big-brained adults start out life as big-brained babies, so evolution came into conflict with itself. On the one hand, female hominins had to maintain a narrow pelvis with a constricted birth canal in order to walk efficiently on two legs. But at the same time the foetuses they carried were evolving to have larger heads, which were a tighter and tighter fit through those narrow pelvises.

Childbirth became a distressingly painful and potentially lethal business, and it remains so to this day. bbc.com/earth/story/20161221-the-real-reasons-why-childbirth-is-so-painful-and-dangerous

And, incidentally, not lethal enough to affect the propagation of the species.Otherwise you wouldn’t be reading this.

There’s the rub! The very fact that childbirth isn’t lethal enough to affect the propagation of the species requires explanation. Life has almost become extinct on this planet on several occasions. How has it survived? The hypothesis that everything is ultimately due to Chance is simplistic and hopelessly inadequate - notably with regard to our power of reason which is the antithesis of a fortuitous product of mindless molecular events.

 

[minkymurph]

I don’t think so. The hypocrites believe what they say. In a sense they are worse than the simple liars. (My opinion only).

They are worse than ‘simple liars’ but is it not the case the hypocrite may not in fact believe what they say? If someone genuinely believes what they say, that’s not really hypocritical - or at least not as hypocritical as demanding others believe something one does not believe oneself.

No, you are mistaken. The 12 officers represent the different answers usually given by apologists, who try to explain “away” the severity of the problem. Just look at them, the “free will” defense, the “greater good” defense, the “you are too ignorant to understand it anyhow” defense, the “it does not matter compared to the eternal bliss” defense… and some more.

I currently manage a small lifestyle businesses providing assistance and support for self advocates - individuals who can’t afford a lawyer. A fundamental advocacy skill is ‘persuading the decision maker.’ A common characteristic of the self advocate is they present arguments that are persuasive to them in the belief the ‘decision maker’ will also find it persuasive. They also focus on elements of the case that are important to them, yet the ‘decision maker’ may consider them irrelevant.

In the scenario of the 12 officers, they owed the woman a duty of care. In their defense they present what I would categorize as ‘self justification’ arguments. Arguments that satisfy them in terms of being excused the legal duty of care - and not the ‘decision maker.’ Thus, their arguments fail. To successfully persuade a ‘decision maker’ one has to present an argument that is persuasive when viewed through their lens. This is no easy task.

Interesting approach. We might discuss it when you want to.

It’s a discussion more suited to your other thread - persuade you God exists. I’ve posted there.

The “necessary suffering” is not “physically necessary”. Logically necessary, which means that even an omnipotent cannot get rid of it. As such the pain of childbirth is not necessary at all. Very easy to overcome with proper technology. Ectogenesis would be one possible answer.

We could - but we’d be toying around with the unknown and if purely for the sake of avoidance of pain highly questionable. More often than not, the majority of women don’t focus on the pain they endured once they have the child. In fact, it’s not uncommon for them to say it was worth it.

Could it be argued the pain of labour is an effective means of curbing the population.

Now if pathogenic organisms experienced equivalent pain on reproducing asexually, that would be a clinical breakthrough.

 

[minkymurph]

Childbirth, for example, does not have to be painful. Unless of course you accept church teaching on the fall and God purposely made it so (but hey, that’s a fundamentalist approach and we don’t want to head in that direction again). If you have ever seen a dog or a cat giving birth, it’s a pretty low key event. If your dog went through as much pain as the average woman did in giving birth, then I would seriously consider puting it out of its misery. And trust me, I know what you girls go through – I was there for the birth of my two kids (tip for future fathers: when you hold your wife’s hand during a contraction, make sure she’s not just gripping your fingers).

My husband would endorse that view.

And the fact that sex is actually enjoyable has caused more problems since the dawn of time than any other single facet of human existence. And don’t tell me that God wouldn’t have been aware of that fact. So He acted like a rather sadistic father who places a bowl of ice cream in front of his child and then tells her that if she touches it, she will be punished.

Or alternatively, the fact that it is enjoyable is a purely evolutionary tactic to make sure we actually went through with the process as often as possible to ensure the survival of the species (I think someone wrote a book about that).

Which do you think is the more likely?

No doubt - we have names for breasts and genitalia than any other part of the body. How many names can you think of for a leg or hand by comparison to breasts? We have more terms for sex than any other synonymous activity - with the possible exception of going to the toilet - but the same parts of the body are involved in that activity. Where I God I would have gone for a different design - like putting a valve on the elbow or something that released sweet smelling gas. I had this idea when I ran into a train station with my back teeth floating only to find the toilets closed for maintenance repair. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
:bigyikes::crying::banghead:

I have often asked myself why the ‘sexual sins’ received such vehement condemnation as opposed to others. We have more There was a time in Ireland were having a child outside marriage was worse than murder. One explanation - though not a particularly good one - is that in small communities having babies with whomever you chose willy nilly - oop’s would have had serious repercussions.

 

[PRmerger]

No. It’s the result of evolutionary changes to women’s bodies. Specifically the changes in the pelvic area resulting from when we started to walk upright as opposed to all fours. Coupled with the fact that we started to evolve larger brains, so we get a bigger head passing through a birth canal that wasn’t designed for it.

Nonsequiturs. I don’t disagree with any of the above, but they’re nonsequiturs nontheless

Pain is there to give us the signal to push. Also. Both/And. (Again).

That’s what we’d expect from evolution. It makes do. It cobbles a bit of this with a bit of that.

Sure. I don’t have a problem with this either. shrug

It doesn’t start from first principles (like God would have done). It has to work with whatever the situation is at any given time. As I said, it’s a pretty poor design.

Ok. shrug again.

As compared to the canine or feline systems. Maybe it was a surprise to God that we started to walk on two legs. He certainly didn’t account for it.

SAAFAF.

Did someone say it was a church teaching? I think I said that it specifically wasn’t, but simply gleaned from a fundamental reading of Genesis (believed by many Catholics).

Then it was otiose to post it, wasn’t it?

And did someone say that analgesics weren’t allowed? I must have missed that bit as well.

Great. So we agree that it’s ree-dank-u-lous to claim that it’s God’s will that women give birth in pain.

NB: we are not talking about God’s permissive will here. (See Aquinas for further details)

 

[minkymurph]

The answer is: “because there is no loving God to prevent it”.

Let’s say God’s not loving. God not being loving does not establish God does not exist at all. To my knowledge humankind has believed in lots of pretty means gods throughout it’s history.

I’m wondering if ‘God is loving’ was believed prior to Christianity.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m wondering if ‘God is loving’ was believed prior to Christianity.

Judaism offered shadows and hints at God’s love.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Let’s say God’s not loving. God not being loving does not establish God does not exist at all. To my knowledge humankind has believed in lots of pretty means gods throughout it’s history.

I’m wondering if ‘God is loving’ was believed prior to Christianity.

You are correct. It is not a “proof” of God’s nonexistence - per se.

 

[minkymurph]

Judaism offered shadows and hints at God’s love.

True - and to my knowledge Islam - and there are intrinsic links between Islam and Judaism - teaches Allah is loving.

If there is no God - or gods - we need to explain why humankind would have ‘invented’ them. Thus, we need to explain why the ‘invention’ of a loving God.

In the past, a god that could annihilate the opposition in battle would have been perceived as pretty useful. A god that punishes people could be argued to useful. Also a god that makes crops grow - and perhaps many other things. So we can understand the reason for this ‘invention.’

Explaining the ‘invention’ of a ‘loving God’ presents greater difficulty. Why would someone, or some group of individuals come to this conclusion when it essentially runs contrary to historical beliefs concerning gods, and doesn’t appear to bestow any great benefit on humankind by comparison to winning battles, social control and stuff. Thus, if belief in God or gods is all a sham, would humankind not have stuck to the mean gods?

 

[o_mlly]

It looks like you have discovered that a fair proportion of people who don’t align themsleves with a specific religion believe in God and could be described as fundamentalists.

Well done.

Thank you. But your congratulations is unwarranted because your inference is flawed: “No Religion” respondents do not claim to believe in God.

Here’s a correct logical inference, though: 100% of (honest) atheists respondents listed themselves as “No Religion.” So some atheists may be simply confused fundamentalists.

 

[o_mlly]

I also use terms and phrases that might indicate an offer from me to indulge in a sexual dalliance. … And my mother always told me to be polite. I try not to let her down.

Whoa! Stop, too much info.:crying: Is this some kind of Oedipus thing?

 

[inocente]

You said at the commencement of this discussion post bars were bombed in the name of Jesus. This is what is in dispute. If my claims are invalid why would tonyrea - post 253 state they are undeniable facts? Is he wrong too?

Thing is, you quoted two points in which you made me repeat what I said originally, and now instead of answering them, you’ve changed the subject by going back 50 posts. I’m thinking God sent you to test my patience bro. Btw when someone posts an “undeniable” or “irrefutable” to a point, let alone to lots of points, it’s an opinion not a proof.

*It’s a fact I did not say all fundamentalists think Godlessness is to blame for all the world’s ills and homosexuality is an abomination.

You claim I said all fundamentalists assert “Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination” Where do you see these words in post? These words are not there. The word ‘all’ is not there. I think I can state with confidence a judge would not see the word ‘all’ in my post. *

Didn’t we already go round the lack of any conditionals? No ‘unless’, ‘if’ or ‘but’; and likewise no ‘some’, ‘a few’ or ‘many’. You didn’t pick any out, you made an unconditional blanket statement. Maybe you didn’t intend it that way, but it’s what you wrote.

I refer to radical atheists as the ‘new fundamentalists.’ If said all fundamentalists assert “Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination.” then by your reasoning I must be claiming they think Godlessness is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination. I think I can state with confidence a judge would not arrive at that conclusion.

I didn’t say that either. I said you infer that’s what they are saying.

Would you claim no religious fundamentalist thinks godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination. If so, why do you think biblical quotes concerning Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah are cited in national newspapers?

There are a large number of people who are bible literalists and a large number who are not, so probably some of both think atheism is to blame for all the worlds ills, etc. So that’s not an exclusive property of either group. I’d expect both groups have their fanatics.

But also, anyone can place an ad in a paper, they only need the money, so the ad may only represent the view of a small number of people. A guy with a small congregation only needs to get them all tithing and pretty soon he’s a smart-dressed man with fancy French cologne and bling to match. Other ministers are available.

*It’s not disparaging, but I don’t think you should cite anything from my personal profile to lend weight to your arguments. *

My arguments are heavy enough, that wasn’t the purpose. And your profile is public information, anyone anywhere can look at it, they don’t even have to join CAF to do so. So if there’s anything you don’t want public, edit it now. npatrol:

 

[o_mlly]

Did you say ‘now’? Good Lord (there it is again…), that was 12 years ago. And our good friends in Texas, having decided that outraging spluttering conservatives (that’s what students tend to do) and winding up the media by swapping porn for bibles had served its purpose by generating suitable publicity, they have taken a less aggressive approach.

“We’re out here just promoting the values of humanism. You can be moral in the absence of religion,” … “Our goal now is to, instead of inciting hostility, we want to engage in civil dialogue.” mysanantonio.com/news/religion/article/Atheist-group-changing-its-message-4947906.php

Now that you are up-to-date, I’m sure the guys at San Antonio will have your full support in their attempt to promote open and constructive dialogue.

You did read the time stamp on your linked article? *Updated 10:02 pm, Friday, November 1, 2013 * Glad to hear the Longhorn atheists finally recognize their error, but an 8 year learning curve? Isn’t that enough time to get an undergraduate degree and a couple of masters? We can only hope other atheists are not such slow learners.

 

[minkymurph]

Didn’t we already go round the lack of any conditionals? No ‘unless’, ‘if’ or ‘but’; and likewise no ‘some’, ‘a few’ or ‘many’. You didn’t pick any out, you made an unconditional blanket statement. Maybe you didn’t intend it that way, but it’s what you wrote.

The question I posed was 'Where is the word ‘all.’ Not - what do think I should have wrote.

My arguments are heavy enough, that wasn’t the purpose. And your profile is public information, anyone anywhere can look at it, they don’t even have to join CAF to do so. So if there’s anything you don’t want public, edit it now. npatrol:

Ah - the ‘blame the victim’ strategy. If used something from you personal profile to discredit you on a personal level it is your fault for putting that information there.

If you want to believe I all fundamentalists including radical atheists believe Godlessness is blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination - or is it the case you are now saying I inferred it rather than actually said it - believe that.

 

[o_mlly]

It would be fatal if we didn’t feel pain. So whether you believe that the system was designed by God or is a natural result of evolutionary pressures (or a combo of both), then it is obviously a good thing. However…

There are some things that we experience that are only handy from an evolutionary sense and which could obviously be described as ‘non-optimal’ if we look at them from a design perspective. That is, if they have been designed, then the guy who did the designing did a pretty sloppy job.

Childbirth, for example, does not have to be painful. Unless of course you accept church teaching on the fall and God purposely made it so (but hey, that’s a fundamentalist approach and we don’t want to head in that direction again). If you have ever seen a dog or a cat giving birth, it’s a pretty low key event. If your dog went through as much pain as the average woman did in giving birth, then I would seriously consider puting it out of its misery. And trust me, I know what you girls go through – I was there for the birth of my two kids (tip for future fathers: when you hold your wife’s hand during a contraction, make sure she’s not just gripping your fingers).

And the process that one goes through that results in childbirth…well, there’s a reason children find the mechanics of the act to be disgusting. Unless your hormones are kicking in, it is pretty gross if you think about it. You will be aware of the requirement to teach children that any action in the nether regions at their age needs to be treated as a matter that requires strict hygiene. We’ll have to change your pants…you need to wash your hands…you have to keep that clean.

And then they get a little older and hey – guess where you are supposed to put that!

And the fact that sex is actually enjoyable has caused more problems since the dawn of time than any other single facet of human existence. And don’t tell me that God wouldn’t have been aware of that fact. So He acted like a rather sadistic father who places a bowl of ice cream in front of his child and then tells her that if she touches it, she will be punished.

Or alternatively, the fact that it is enjoyable is a purely evolutionary tactic to make sure we actually went through with the process as often as possible to ensure the survival of the species (I think someone wrote a book about that).

Which do you think is the more likely?

I think it was Larson who penned a panel about that … “Men are so cute when they try to comprehend God’s ways.”

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I think it was Larson who penned a panel about that … “Men are so cute when they try to comprehend God’s ways.”

Do you speak of yourself? The theist apologists always declare that they “know” what God’s “ways” are, what God’s requirements happen to be… The skeptics simply take these assumed pieces of “knowledge” and show the inconsistencies among them. Because skeptics do not try to understand God’s ways… they try to understand how some theists can practice “doublethink”.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Do you speak of yourself? The theist apologists always declare that they “know” what God’s “ways” are, what God’s requirements happen to be… The skeptics simply take these assumed pieces of “knowledge” and show the inconsistencies among them. Because skeptics do not try to understand God’s ways… they try to understand how some theists can practice “doublethink”.

Theists say we can never comprehend God. Where did you get that idea?