The atheists best argument?

[PumpkinCookie]

If God is neither separate nor omnibenevolent, then neither good nor evil actually exist. All you have left is what just is – and that is neither evil nor good. That entails morality is a delusion. I don’t think you can hold that position consistently, since you will at some point be compelled to characterize acts such as murder, rape, torture, abuse, lying, fraud as acts which are more than just discomforting to you, but wrong or evil in themselves because they contravene what ought to be.

You wouldn’t be able to make a case that things really OUGHT to be a certain way to be better (and neither would the atheist) without some transcendent source of value that is more than just que sera, sera, a phrase which presents a whimsical facade, but doesn’t support any substantial ethical system whatsoever.

Again, you might pretend that is okay with you, but that pose-ition will crumble at the first hint of injustice, which positively presumes that things really ought to be a certain way to make any moral claims on others.

I don’t suppose you would excuse the actions of the driver of the truck in Nice with que sera, sera on the grounds that you don’t need to account for either good or evil, because things just are.

On the other hand, stranger things are believed. For example, by the driver of the truck who supposes that running over women and children is a “good” thing. You just don’t think of it as either good or evil, just what is.

Speaking of tautology, isn’t “it is what it is” a tautology? The question is, “Should it be?”

What I meant is that I cannot make a judgement about whether God is “good” or “evil.” He will be what he will be, and so everything is what it is. That doesn’t mean we can’t make moral judgments about each other, though we must understand that we could be wrong.

I have no idea how the universe as a whole “ought” to be, but I can affirm that what the driver in Nice did was heinously wrong. Not because God didn’t will it, but because it had a bad effect and also destroyed the dignity of the driver. I don’t need to account for God’s complicity in this though, like a traditional theist must.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What I meant is that I cannot make a judgement about whether God is “good” or “evil.” He will be what he will be, and so everything is what it is. That doesn’t mean we can’t make moral judgments about each other, though we must understand that we could be wrong.

I have no idea how the universe as a whole “ought” to be, but I can affirm that what the driver in Nice did was heinously wrong. Not because God didn’t will it, but because it had a bad effect and also destroyed the dignity of the driver. I don’t need to account for God’s complicity in this though, like a traditional theist must.

Why must a traditional theist “account for God’s complicity in this?” A “traditional theist” – [Bradski, I am sure, will have something to say about this term] presuming I understand what you mean by the term (pace Bradski) – claims that any moral agent has been created by God with a free will and bears full responsibility for each moral act precisely because neither God nor the devil MAKES him do it. There is no “complicity” of God, just the moral responsibility of the agent for what he does wherever moral agency exists.

“Traditional theists” don’t need to account for God’s complicity, but you actually do because you claim God is identical to what is. Remember: * que sera, sera.* God just is what is, for you.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Whatever could omnimalevolent even possibly mean? Destructive to the point of destroying everything in its wake until nothing existed including itself? Seems a self-contradictory notion, no?

So if God is “the pure act of Being Itself,” then, presumably, not-God would be “the pure act of non-being, of non-existence, of nothingness, itself.”

No, if God were omnimalevolent, then existence itself would be evil. Why would he destroy it?

 

[Tomdstone]

So if God is “the pure act of Being Itself,” then, presumably, not-God would be “the pure act of non-being, of non-existence, of nothingness, itself.”

Speaking of misguided.

No. Your reasoning is fallacious, as usual. The negation of pure act of being is not pure act of non-being. The negation of pure act of being is something which is not a pure act of being. which encompasses a whole lot of things. For example, something which is an impure act of being, or an act of being which is not completely pure, would be in the set of all objects which are not pure acts of being. A partially pure act of being would be not-God.
We who reason correctly are not necessarily misguided, rather it is those who reason incorrectly and do not apply the rules of logical negation correctly who are misguided.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No. Your reasoning is fallacious, as usual. The negation of pure act of being is not pure act of non-being. The negation of pure act of being is something which is not a pure act of being. which encompasses a whole lot of things. For example, something which is an impure act of being, or an act of being which is not completely pure, would be in the set of all objects which are not pure acts of being. A partially pure act of being would be not-God.
We who reason correctly are not necessarily misguided, rather it is those who reason incorrectly and do not apply the rules of logical negation correctly who are misguided.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, if God were omnimalevolent, then existence itself would be evil. Why would he destroy it?

Existence doesn’t become evil just because you say it is.

Proof by assertion?

Or perhaps proof by slapping a different label on the reality in question?

Ugh, nominalism

 

[tonyrey]

What I meant is that I cannot make a judgement about whether God is “good” or “evil.” He will be what he will be, and so everything is what it is. That doesn’t mean we can’t make moral judgments about each other, though we must understand that we could be wrong.

If “He will be what he will be, and so everything is what it is” we can make moral judgments but they have no **rational **foundation. .

I have no idea how the universe as a whole “ought” to be, but I can affirm that what the driver in Nice did was heinously wrong. Not because God didn’t will it, but because it had a bad effect and also destroyed the dignity of the driver.

“bad” begs the question and “dignity” is not a moral criterion.

I don’t need to account for God’s complicity in this though, like a traditional theist must.

Your amoral view of reality implies that you don’t even need to account for your statements! There is no **rational **foundation for anything…

 

[tonyrey]

No. Your reasoning is fallacious, as usual. The negation of pure act of being is not pure act of non-being. The negation of pure act of being is something which is not a pure act of being. which encompasses a whole lot of things. For example, something which is an impure act of being, or an act of being which is not completely pure, would be in the set of all objects which are not pure acts of being. A partially pure act of being would be not-God.
We who reason correctly are not necessarily misguided, rather it is those who reason incorrectly and do not apply the rules of logical negation correctly who are misguided.

In a purposeless universe nothing is logical…

 

[tonyrey]

No, if God were omnimalevolent, then existence itself would be evil. Why would he destroy it?

So you agree that existence is good?

 

[Peter_Plato]

So you agree that existence is good?

It would appear that an omnimalevolent being would have to permit some good in order to allow evil to continue to exist precisely because evil is parasitic on the good.

Notice, that that isn’t true of the omnibenevolent God who only permits evil to exist because of the possibility of redemption of those free agent beings who have chosen to do evil. At some point the omnibenevolence of God will determine that evil will be eradicated because the tradeoff of permitting evil to exist will reach a certain point – when the free agent chooses evil irrevocably – at which time it is no longer necessary to permit the evil to infect the host because at that point there is no longer hope for the host to be redeemed and become good. Evil will run its course and destroy the host and malevolence in each instance will reach its logical terminus in each host until all evil is completely eradicated. Evil cannot and will not exist eternally, only temporarily.

Omnimalevolence is impossible because good has to exist to provide a host for the evil. So, being all-evil (omnimalevolence) is not possible in the sense that being all-good (omnibenevolence) is. It is ontologically self-defeating as a possibility.

 

[Tomdstone]

In a purposeless universe nothing is logical…

Generally, I do not buy arguments which are illogical and violate the simple rules of logic, and I suspect that fallacious reasoning will not be convincing to many people.

 

[pete_29]

Atheists don’t exist

 

[Tomdstone]

Evil cannot and will not exist eternally, only temporarily.

Hell is a place of eternal torment, not temporary. “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” (Revelation 20:10).Not a good place.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

If “He will be what he will be, and so everything is what it is” we can make moral judgments but they have no **rational **foundation. .
“bad” begs the question and “dignity” is not a moral criterion."

What do you mean by “rational?” Why is “dignity” not a moral criterion?

Personally, I believe morality emerges from nature, and I waffle between appealing to virtue ethics and the categorical imperative to explain our moral intuitions. I think virtually everyone would agree that plowing into dozens of people and murdering them in cold blood is wrong. Ironically, it takes a religious belief in the divine command theory of ethics to convince us otherwise, in this case at least! I cannot believe the man in that truck felt that it was natural, good, and virtuous to mow down random strangers. He had to convince himself that it was God’s will and that he would be infinitely compensated for the suffering he caused/endured in pursuit of jihad.

Skepticism of “God’s will” doesn’t seem to motivate similar acts of outrageous barbarism does it? When was the last time someone blew themselves up while screaming “I’m not so sure what God requires of us, and I have a suspicion that he cannot be evaluated and that words like “good” and “evil” have no meaning when applied to him!!!” LOL. Rather, this skepticism motivated the creation of secularism and modern religious freedom, which put an end to the centuries of religious conflict in the west.

Your amoral view of reality implies that you don’t even need to account for your statements! There is no **rational **foundation for anything…

I’m sorry, I don’t see that implication…would you mind explaining further?

 

[LethalMouse]

What do you mean by “rational?” Why is “dignity” not a moral criterion?

Personally, I believe morality emerges from nature, and I waffle between appealing to virtue ethics and the categorical imperative to explain our moral intuitions. I think virtually everyone would agree that plowing into dozens of people and murdering them in cold blood is wrong. Ironically, it takes a religious belief in the divine command theory of ethics to convince us otherwise, in this case at least! I cannot believe the man in that truck felt that it was natural, good, and virtuous to mow down random strangers. He had to convince himself that it was God’s will and that he would be infinitely compensated for the suffering he caused/endured in pursuit of jihad.

Skepticism of “God’s will” doesn’t seem to motivate similar acts of outrageous barbarism does it? When was the last time someone blew themselves up while screaming “I’m not so sure what God requires of us, and I have a suspicion that he cannot be evaluated and that words like “good” and “evil” have no meaning when applied to him!!!” LOL. Rather, this skepticism motivated the creation of secularism and modern religious freedom, which put an end to the centuries of religious conflict in the west.

I’m sorry, I don’t see that implication…would you mind explaining further?

Yet Stalin was an athesit

Killing about 20 million in the name of not Got was easy enough no?

Humans can warp anyhting, including falsify God’s will.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It would appear that an omnimalevolent being would have to permit some good in order to allow evil to continue to exist precisely because evil is parasitic on the good.

Notice, that that isn’t true of the omnibenevolent God who only permits evil to exist because of the possibility of redemption of those free agent beings who have chosen to do evil. At some point the omnibenevolence of God will determine that evil will be eradicated because the tradeoff of permitting evil to exist will reach a certain point – when the free agent chooses evil irrevocably – at which time it is no longer necessary to permit the evil to infect the host because at that point there is no longer hope for the host to be redeemed and become good. Evil will run its course and destroy the host and malevolence in each instance will reach its logical terminus in each host until all evil is completely eradicated. Evil cannot and will not exist eternally, only temporarily.

Omnimalevolence is impossible because good has to exist to provide a host for the evil. So, being all-evil (omnimalevolence) is not possible in the sense that being all-good (omnibenevolence) is. It is ontologically self-defeating as a possibility.

Look, Mr. Plato, I agree with you that “omnimalevolence” is a nonsense term. Not because I buy into your metaphysics regarding the nature of evil and its relationship to good, but because the term is incoherent in itself.

However, I also believe “omnibenevolence” is similarly incoherent. Consider: if God were truly omnibenevolent, and existence itself is “good,” and God is also omnipotent, then why aren’t there infinite beings? Why aren’t their infinite minds? Only a truly infinite universe of absolute perfection would seem to be the appropriate create of the 3 O God, right?

Think about it: there have been billions of humans right? Each one of them is in the image of God, infinitely precious, totally good. Well, why aren’t there an infinite number of us? Isn’t that evil, all those missing humans? If evil is a privation of the good, and good is just another word for existence, then this universe is incalculably evil since it doesn’t contain an infinity of everything.

What is the difference between omnibenevolent and merely benevolent?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Yet Stalin was an athesit

Killing about 20 million in the name of not Got was easy enough no?

Humans can warp anyhting, including falsify God’s will.

https://i.imgsafe.org/d9d3db5799.png

 

[LethalMouse]

https://i.imgsafe.org/d9d3db5799.png

So firstly a small sample. Secondly I’d note the religious section has “groups” rather than JUST individuals.

So Stalin + every group like him adds up.

We didnt cover Cuba etc etc. Though i am not 100% on exactly how it went down.

Now no one kills for lack of ideology?

Lol I don’t think Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, George Kluclinsky etc were getting down on politics or religion.

Let alone the fact that some like the latter 3 hitch onto the other ideologies just to get people to helo them.

Gangs, mafias etc. Motivated purely by “do what I want”

Etc.

That meme looks good but falls way short in so many facets.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

So firstly a small sample. Secondly I’d note the religious section has “groups” rather than JUST individuals.

So Stalin + every group like him adds up.

We didnt cover Cuba etc etc. Though i am not 100% on exactly how it went down.

Now no one kills for lack of ideology?

Lol I don’t think Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, George Kluclinsky etc were getting down on politics or religion.

Let alone the fact that some like the latter 3 hitch onto the other ideologies just to get people to helo them.

Gangs, mafias etc. Motivated purely by “do what I want”

Etc.

That meme looks good but falls way short in so many facets.

Memes always fall short, I’m just so tired of discussing the whole Stalin/Hitler/Mao were atheists therefore atheism is just as bad as Wahabism or Torquemada-ism.

Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, George Kluclinsky weren’t motivated to kill simply because they didn’t have beliefs. In fact, I think several were Christians. On the contrary, they killed for other reasons.

Which people in the world have been known to say something like “I’m skeptical about the existence of God, so I will kill people in a glorious mission to get others to share my skepticism?” I’m not aware of any.

Now, you have a good point: how many people commit crimes and live totally selfishly because they have a sneaking suspicion that morality is a fantasy? I’m not sure. It could be a lot. Also, how many people are depressed and on drugs because they have lost the belief that God loves them and cares for them? Probably a lot! Think of the tremendous waste of human potential, all because people are depressed.

 

[LethalMouse]

Memes always fall short, I’m just so tired of discussing the whole Stalin/Hitler/Mao were atheists therefore atheism is just as bad as Wahabism or Torquemada-ism.

Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, George Kluclinsky weren’t motivated to kill simply because they didn’t have beliefs. In fact, I think several were Christians. On the contrary, they killed for other reasons.

Which people in the world have been known to say something like “I’m skeptical about the existence of God, so I will kill people in a glorious mission to get others to share my skepticism?” I’m not aware of any.

Now, you have a good point: how many people commit crimes and live totally selfishly because they have a sneaking suspicion that morality is a fantasy? I’m not sure. It could be a lot. Also, how many people are depressed and on drugs because they have lost the belief that God loves them and cares for them? Probably a lot! Think of the tremendous waste of human potential, all because people are depressed.

When I was an atheist I still checked the box on things that said Catholic.

It was my “given” religious title.

But that has NOTHING to do with me at the time, I was in fact not Catholic.

One notable example is that army that was excommunicated and often used as an example of evil catholics. They killed raped and plundered everyone.

They were not a “catholic” army. They were a group of people doing whatever they want.

George for examoke was a mafia hitman and killed people. But he was a hitman BECAUSE he liked to kill people. He found an excuse to harness doing what he wants.

He is the same guy who killed some random person with a crossbow because after watching a movie he wondered if you can realky kill someone with such a thing.

If he was born in the middle east he’d have been a diehard islamic terrorist. Not because he believed in it, but because it would be an avenue to do what he wants.

And you said it best in the end, it is near unquantifiable to say how many killers really just think it doesnt matter. Especially if they use any false front.

And that is without even arguing that many “holy” wars were really political wars with a guise of “righteousness” lol.