The absurdity of atheism

[Charlemagne_III]

I was a Christian, but I got over it.) And as for “direct experience” of God, let me express my strong skepticism.

And that is (probably) the most derogatory thing you can say about God. To “respect” the free will of the psychopaths is the sign of total indifference, if not outright viciousness. To allow evil actions is giving (tacit) approval of those actions.

The price of free will is great. If God stayed the hand of every homicide, if he stayed every act of injustice, if he stayed every uncharitable deed, if he stayed every doubting Thomas, he would be a tyrant.

You got over being a Christian not because the evidence was not present, but because the experience was not real. A real Christian does not get over being a real Christian.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The price of free will is great.

Paid by the victims, who never chose to pay that price. How come that God always “respects” the free will of the strong bullies over the freedom of the weak victims? Don’t you see nothing wrong with this picture?

If God stayed the hand of every homicide, if he stayed every act of injustice, if he stayed every uncharitable deed, if he stayed every doubting Thomas, he would be a tyrant.

Ah, but he would be a GOOD tyrant! Someone worthy to worship! Of course it would be enough to prevent the murders, the rapes and tortures and allow all the “evil” masturbations, non-procreative love and so on, to go on… Even better, using his omniscience, he could simply choose NOT CREATE the psychopaths. Do you actually support the terrorists who blow up other people - in the name of “free will”? Why don’t you go around in Paris and proclaim: “Rejoice! This was the price of free will”… on second thought… you might not want to do it… the grieving people might take exception to such “attitude”.

You got over being a Christian not because the evidence was not present, but because the experience was not real. A real Christian does not get over being a real Christian.

Oh, the good old no true Scotsman fallacy! Have not seen it for a while.

 

[tonyrey]

You are restricting yourself to subjective values, Brad.

With equal facility I could say that you are well known around these parts for ignoring topics you don’t like and substituting topics of your own to change the direction of the discussion.

Well I value my mug. It’s obviously a subjective value. I assume that you consider things to have subjective value as well. I want you tell to tell me if you think that those values that we share are real or whether they are fantasies.

The fact that they are shared doesn’t alter the fact that they are fantasies if they have no useful purpose. If a mug is broken and lets hot coffee drip on your trousers you wouldn’t treasure it unless you mended it (or are a masochist . It might have sentimental value but you can’t resort to that argument for everything. You might wish some one were dead but I don’t think you would approve if a kind friend fulfilled it!

 

[Bradski]

The fact that they are shared doesn’t alter the fact that they are fantasies if they have no useful purpose. It might have sentimental value but you can’t resort to that argument for everything.

I don’t need to you. I just wanted to show that some things in life that you value are done so on exactly the same basis as I value them. As you said, they are shared. And that those values are relative, not absolute.

But it does seem odd that you would personally describe the value that you would place on something that your child made for you as a fantasy. The item itself might be worthless and have no useful purpose, but are you saying that your value of it (and you agreed that you would value it) would not be real?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ah, but he would be a GOOD tyrant!

Oh, the good old no true Scotsman fallacy! Have not seen it for a while.

A God who would force you not to do something is also a God who would force you to do something.

He would force you to love him. What would be the point of that?

Those who are victims of homicide in your world view are forever victims. You would banish them to nothingness.

In the Catholic view, we do not know how God treats the victims of homicide. One thing we do know; he does not annihilate them forever, as you seem to believe.

The No true Scotsman Fallacy was originated by world famous atheist Antony Flew. At the end of his life Flew declared himself no longer an atheist, possibly because he had begun to think of God as a person to be known, not as an idea to be refuted.

By the way, the atheist does not get to decide who is the true Christian. So the “No True Scotsman” does not apply as a fallacy in this instance.

 

[tonyrey]

Some believe what they find comforting, and that includes atheists (I know one who believes in heaven but not in God, and two who believe in angels). Others prefer to believe what they think is objectively true, and that includes Christians.

I think though that the OP is making a value judgment, and this type of thread can only be about personal value judgments. The other day the radio played the song: “Whatever gets you through your life / It’s all right, it’s all right / Do it wrong, or do it right / It’s all right, it’s all right”. (John Lennon, youtube.com/watch?v=vjWebKavfuI). Ultimately that may be what we all do, whatever we believe .

There is a difference, John, between personal value judgments and value judgments based on fact. As an atheist pointed out, the value of life stems from being a source of opportunities. We cannot deny that without being unreasonable…

 

[robsully]

Would you be so kind as to define a “real Christian”?
And would you be so kind as to provide the “evidence” that was present for Pallas?

 

[robsully]

Would you be so kind as to define a “real Christian”?
And would you also be so kind as to provide the “evidence” that was provided to Pallas?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

A God who would force you not to do something is also a God who would force you to do something.

The word is COULD, not WOULD. A would-be terrorist would not be “forced” to love God, if he would be rendered impotent to blow up others.

By the way, the atheist does not get to decide who is the true Christian. So the “No True Scotsman” does not apply as a fallacy in this instance.

It was YOU who declared that I was not a “TRUE” Christian.

Why do you dance around the question? Do you endorse, support the “free will” of the terrorists? Why does God always endorse, support the “free will” of the strong bullies and shrugs off the pleas of the weak victims? Are you going to walk the walk, and go to Paris to declare: “Rejoice! God protected the free will of the terrorists!”.

If God allows evil acts, which he could prevent, then God tacitly endorses and supports those evil acts.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I think we’re all like that. I call it The Flywheel of Belief.

I’m going to borrow this.

 

[Bradski]

Of course, Mary on a taco is not part of revealed doctrine or dogma, so such things mean nothing at all.

We’re talking evidence. People have used miracles, are using miracles and will continue to use miracles as evidence of God.

And that included Mary on a Taco and other miracles like fence posts that look just like her. Well, at a certain time of the day, if you stand just here and sort of look sideways and squint your eyes like this and you have a gullibility rating off the scale: smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/30/1043804464591.html

That’s evidence. No more and no less than that from Zeitoun or Fatima.

 

[OU812]

Why do you dance around the question? Do you endorse, support the “free will” of the terrorists? Why does God always endorse, support the “free will” of the strong bullies and shrugs off the pleas of the weak victims? Are you going to walk the walk, and go to Paris to declare: “Rejoice! God protected the free will of the terrorists!”.

If God allows evil acts, which he could prevent, then God tacitly endorses and supports those evil acts.

Let’s take it down to more of a mico level: do you blame the city, state, country for someone choosing to deviate from being a law abiding citizen? Let’s go even further: do you blame every single parent of a psychopath or a madman for what they ultimately become?

Most of the times it’s what they elect to be through no fault but their own. Free will, true freedom is both a real blessing and a real curse. At the end of it all, we decide what we ultimately become and do. You only highlight the negatives, but free will also encompasses the positives. We are also our brother’s keeper, afterall, but some people prefer to watch the world burn.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Would you be so kind as to define a “real Christian”?
And would you also be so kind as to provide the “evidence” that was provided to Pallas?

A real Christian is one who has a real relationship with Jesus, not an ideological one in which Jesus is judged according TO ONE’S PERSONAL PREFERENCE FOR HOW A GOD SHOULD BEHAVE.

Pallas will have to provide you with an answer to the second half of that question.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The word is COULD, not WOULD. A would-be terrorist would not be “forced” to love God, if he would be rendered impotent to blow up others.

It was YOU who declared that I was not a “TRUE” Christian.

Why do you dance around the question? Do you endorse, support the “free will” of the terrorists? Why does God always endorse, support the “free will” of the strong bullies and shrugs off the pleas of the weak victims? Are you going to walk the walk, and go to Paris to declare: “Rejoice! God protected the free will of the terrorists!”.

If God allows evil acts, which he could prevent, then God tacitly endorses and supports those evil acts.

Talking with you is like talking to a revolving door. Do you ever change your thought processes or are they so automatic you can’t help yourself?

God permits because not to permit is to force! What part of the word FORCE do you not get?

You obviously don’t believe in free will. Just like a deterministic materialist.

Were you a true Christian you would renounce materialistic determinism , atheism, and every other ism that is hateful toward God.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Let’s take it down to more of a mico level: do you blame the city, state, country for someone choosing to deviate from being a law abiding citizen? Let’s go even further: do you blame every single parent of a psychopath or a madman for what they ultimately become?

Why would I blame them? They do not have the knowledge or the power to prevent destructive behavior.

Most of the times it’s what they elect to be through no fault but their own. Free will, true freedom is both a real blessing and a real curse. At the end of it all, we decide what we ultimately become and do. You only highlight the negatives, but free will also encompasses the positives. We are also our brother’s keeper, afterall, but some people prefer to watch the world burn.

I highlight the negatives, because they are in direct contradiction with God’s alleged “loving” and “caring” nature. A loving and caring person would not allow terrorists go rampant and keep on slaughtering people.

If you would have foreknowledge of a terrorist attack, and could prevent it, would you let it happen in the name of “free will”? This is the question that people on your side do not want to face.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Talking with you is like talking to a revolving door. Do you ever change your thought processes or are they so automatic you can’t help yourself?

Why don’t you answer the direct and simple question? Of course your silence also speaks volumes. Why do you value the atrocities of the terrorists?

God permits because not to permit is to force! What part of the word FORCE do you not get?

Oh I do understand. When necessary, one MUST use force… just like the police does. What part of that don’t YOU understand? If one must use force to defend the weak, using force is not just acceptable… it is MANDATORY.

 

[robsully]

A real Christian is one who has a real relationship with Jesus, not an ideological one in which Jesus is judged according TO ONE’S PERSONAL PREFERENCE FOR HOW A GOD SHOULD BEHAVE.

Pallas will have to provide you with an answer to the second half of that question.

1. Would you provide the evidence that shows Pallas didn’t have this “real” relationship?
2. You seem to have knowledge of what evidence was presented to Pallas, how is this possible?
3. If you did not judge God and his behaviour, how did you know you should worship him instead of some other God?

 

[Della]

We’re talking evidence. People have used miracles, are using miracles and will continue to use miracles as evidence of God.

And that included Mary on a Taco and other miracles like fence posts that look just like her. Well, at a certain time of the day, if you stand just here and sort of look sideways and squint your eyes like this and you have a gullibility rating off the scale: smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/30/1043804464591.html

That’s evidence. No more and no less than that from Zeitoun or Fatima.

Ah no, my friend. For Catholics a true miracle is one which has been defined as one by Christ’s Church, not merely by individual experience. The process of determining if any such phenomenon is a miracle or not starts with the local bishop. I know of no bishop who has started investigations into the kind of frivolous occurances you described. If and when one does, then I’ll give credence to your examples.

 

[inocente]

There is a difference, John, between personal value judgments and value judgments based on fact. As an atheist pointed out, the value of life stems from being a source of opportunities. We cannot deny that without being unreasonable…

But all value judgments are relative, by definition they are judgments about whether one thing has more value than another. I don’t know how to objectively value atheism compared to my faith.

An Englishman, an American and a Syrian walk into a bar. I’d suggest they have far more which joins them than separates them. An atheist, a Baptist and a Catholic walk into a bar. Surely that’s no different?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Why don’t you answer the direct and simple question? Of course your silence also speaks volumes. Why do you value the atrocities of the terrorists?

Oh I do understand. When necessary, one MUST use force… just like the police does. What part of that don’t YOU understand? If one must use force to defend the weak, using force is not just acceptable… it is MANDATORY.

Sorry, but this analogy shows how confused you really are.

I think in the presence of such confusion, silence is after all the best policy.

God bless.