The atheists best argument?

[tonyrey]

Atheists rage against the Christian God? I don’t think so. We don’t rage against a God we don’t think exists.

On this forum there have been - and are - plenty of atheists who vent their spleen at the very mention of God. Since they cannot be sure there is no God it at least amounts to rage against what He has done. Hatred and prejudice can also be irrational…

 

[SlowerAndSlower]

Going back to the original post

The most painful part of evil comes when one finds it (or the potential) looking in the mirror -

and “I don’t mean” (just) everyday evil like illness,death, heartback, confusion etc, but more
like the spectacular kind, such as child abductions, where children/people are held in
basements and abused for years.”

There are deep psychological factors at play in distancing ourselves from misfortune.

On a relatively superficial level (but is still deeply revealing, because we generally do not
realize that we do it) is how we speak of the local sports teams: if the local sports team
wins the game, we say “WE win!”, but when the local sports team loses the game,
we say “THEY lost.” How much more this happens with serious evil!

In literature, there are works such as _Lord_of_the_Flies_ that explore the

ability of “ordinary folk” to do terrible things, but one can come a point in prayer when one
can “see” that it is true for oneself… that one is no better than anyone else, and it is only by
the grace of God that you have not done even more evil things yourself.

The idea that there are some “bad people” out there and the world should start over

without them, is a repeated theme in Genesis (consider Noah and his ark, for one).
It did not work.

Until one has some appreciation for the magnitude of one’s sins, the crucifix is

appreciated only slightly, if at all. On the cross hangs the one who is innocent, who swallows
up all those sins in proffered forgiveness. He is the one who feels the pain.

As one approaches the cross, there is a choice to be made - one can stand idly by

“in a normal, reasonable life”, or one can spit in his face (such is love, that it makes itself
vulnerable) and yell at him in bitterness about the child that did not have “a normal, reasonable
life” - and perhaps he will answer that he took the brunt of that child’s pain and the pain of
hundreds of millions more children who never saw the light of day because their own mothers
didn’t want them around, lest they interfere with Mom living “a normal, reasonable life”, or one
can make a small leap of faith across a chasm, and out of love, do as he requested -
“take up your cross and follow me” - and be nailed to your own cross, that you may at least
offer to reduce his pain.

For the Christian, the Crucifix is a sign of victory - because Jesus rose from the dead.

The pains in this life are like those of a woman in labor, all worthwhile after the baby is born.

Our lives will be judged by how we respond to his love - not by how much evil others

have chosen. It can be counter-productive to dwell upon the evil of the universe,
seen or unseen. As in riding a bicycle or driving a car, you tend to steer where you
are looking.

God is for real - if experienced miracles are outside your mental comfort zone, it would

be good to read lives of some of the Saints, such as St. Padre Pio. If you currently trust only
in science, it would be worthwhile to read the research work on the Shroud of Turin. But, above all,
pray, pray, pray and love, love, love. Avail yourself of the Sacraments. And don’t worry.

The athiest’s best argument? - the relentless search for truth (or lack thereof), because to

recognize “the light, the truth, and the way” when one finds it (though actually it finds you),
it helps to know what it is not.

 

[inocente]

Well, that is because there are good people in the world, and there are good things in the world.

There are plenty of examples of people who grew up knowing nothing but evil.
Imagine that that bullied kid is in a isolated area where nobody else sees what is going on. There are people who grew up in a warzone. There are those who grow up in urban areas that have gangs doing evil and all they see every day is evil.

Sure, people can be damaged. But human nature always shows through in the end, or we’d all be living in permanent war-zones in never-ending wars. The fact that we’re not shows that in all history there’s never been a situation so dire that people have forgotten what is good.

 

[inocente]

In a Godless universe there is no reason why anything exists.

Your truculence is unseemly on a philosophy forum. A little courtesy would be refreshing…

Not sure whether your “strange freaks of nature” counts as unseemly truculence , and thankfully it’s off-topic.

Does everyone think child abuse should be a punishable offence? If not why not?

Possibly some perpetrators don’t much like the idea of being punished, for obvious reasons. The rest of us take the view that they should be locked away for equally obvious reasons. Child abuse is evil, period. Do you have a case where you think child abuse is good? If not, why are you arguing this point?

*Your standard argument reappears once again!

The topic is "The **atheist’s ***best argument…

Nope, that’s only the thread title. The OP is 221 words which speak of “child abductions, where children/people are held in basements and abused for years” and says “It seems God isn’t present in their lives and indeed did not try to intervene to give them a normal, reasonable life” and ends “it’s like I wish God to be real… but the suffering of others ] has made me question it”.

Sometimes I also have the same question, and I’ve never seen a good answer to the problem of evil. The formulation that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good doesn’t seem compatible with “child abductions, where children/people are held in basements and abused for years”. Do you have an answer for why God doesn’t intervene when any normal person, as soon as we knew of it, would move heaven and earth to stop the abuse?

 

[o_mlly]

A lot of what atheists say does not really make sense. I know in my heart there is a God.

But the atheists best argument, IMO, and the one that has at times made me despair of a God existing at all is this: The problem of evil. And I don’t mean everyday evil like illness,death, heartback, confusion etc, but more like the spectacular kind, such as child abductions, where children/people are held in basements and abused for years.

It seems God isn’t present in their lives and indeed did not try to intervene to give them a normal, reasonable life.

The fact that such extraodinary suffering and sorrow exists, makes my own problems seem paltry and perhaps makes me want to be a little bit kinder in the world.

Still though. Child sexual abuse/abduction seems one of the worst things to me. I know free will and all that… but stilll.

Has anyone ever felt my thoughts? I mean… I am a Catholic to the core… but stuff like this… makes me question… or really question at times.

It seems the evil of such a thing ( think Jacob Wetterling) far out weighs the good. I just don’t know sometimes… it’s like I wish God to be real… but the suffering of others makes and has made me question it…

Moral evil is the price God apparently and temporarily permits to allow our moral autonomy. The atheist argues that the co-existence of some moral evil and God are improbable or impossible.

The theist argues that without God, the source of all goodness, the level of moral evil would have caused the extinction of all mankind long ago. Where there is life and some goodness there is hope and there is life and there is some goodness – thank God.

 

[Bradski]

This is an example of “If someone grew up knowing nothing but good, they can’t know evil.”

That’s my point.

I think that you are missing mine.

What we describe as good or bad is relative. But each of us can conceive of something bad. Or of something good.

If you get beaten every day, then not get beaten on weekends is good. You could envisage that. You could wonder: ‘Why does it have to be every day? Why doesn’t God give me a break?’

That is the problem of evil.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The tale of Sartre having a “deathbed conversion” tho, is a myth.

It isn’t a myth just because you say it’s a myth.

atheismexposed.tripod.com/sartre.htm

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Why not?
Why is there no good without a God?

It’s as if you could have a stream without a river.

A stream does not create itself. It has a source that feeds it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think that you are missing mine.

What we describe as good or bad is relative. But each of us can conceive of something bad. Or of something good.

If you get beaten every day, then not get beaten on weekends is good. You could envisage that. You could wonder: ‘Why does it have to be every day? Why doesn’t God give me a break?’

That is the problem of evil.

If you are claiming that everyone’s understanding of evil is based purely upon their own personal experiences and disappointments, I would think you are not describing the problem of evil, per se, but the problem with thinking it’s all about you, i.e., the problem of original sin, the problem of being unable to see from a perspective outside of or from beyond yourself.

“Why doesn’t God give me a break?” might be said as a complaint about or to God, or it could be asked to genuinely try to understand from a larger and more deeply thoughtful perspective why no break has come. Why, indeed, has no break come? What those reasons might be could lead a person to a point beyond themselves and beyond a narrowed preoccupation focused upon one’s own state.

 

[BobCatholic]

Sure, people can be damaged. But human nature always shows through in the end, or we’d all be living in permanent war-zones in never-ending wars. The fact that we’re not shows that in all history there’s never been a situation so dire that people have forgotten what is good.

That’s right the world has both good and evil in it, that’s how we can tell the difference between the two.

If you get beaten every day, then not get beaten on weekends is good. You could envisage that. You could wonder: ‘Why does it have to be every day? Why doesn’t God give me a break?’

That is the problem of evil.

The person who is not beaten on weekends knows that is not normal. They only know the evil of being beaten, they wonder what is wrong (and that they’ll probably be beaten more later).

They won’t see “not being beaten on the weekends” as good. They have no concept of good, because they don’t know what it is.

The problem of evil does not exist unless there is good to compare it against. If there is nothing but evil, evil is “normal” and “as expected” - “it is what it is”

If there was no good in the world, nobody could complain about evil. The idea of “good” would be a foreign concept.

Think of it this way: If you were born in the on a planet that was 100% arctic and never lived anywhere else, would you have a concept of women walking around in a bikini? Of course not.

 

[Strydersroom]

From a purely logical standpoint, the only truth and best argument is for agnosticism.
Namely,

NO ONE KNOWS what happens when you die. No one. Not for certain. Absolutely not. And that’s the scary part. Yes, it’s all about faith, but the truth is like so many before us, we will all die, and hopefully find out the truth. So let’s hope it’s a good one. I personally would like a quantum leap type of happy Heaven, where we’re reunited with out loved ones and able to travel through time and space to see peace and love in the galaxy.

 

[Bradski]

If you are claiming that everyone’s understanding of evil is based purely upon their own personal experiences and disappointments, I would think you are not describing the problem of evil, per se, but the problem with thinking it’s all about you…

Extrapolate, Peter. Extrapolate.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think that you are missing mine.

What we describe as good or bad is relative. But each of us can conceive of something bad. Or of something good.

If you get beaten every day, then not get beaten on weekends is good. You could envisage that. You could wonder: ‘Why does it have to be every day? Why doesn’t God give me a break?’

That is the problem of evil.

To make a more cogent reply to this narrow view of evil, let’s take BobCatholic’s example from a previous post…

There are plenty of examples of people who grew up knowing nothing but evil.
Imagine that that bullied kid is in a isolated area where nobody else sees what is going on. There are people who grew up in a warzone. There are those who grow up in urban areas that have gangs doing evil and all they see every day is evil.

Your description of “evil” would imply that only the bullied kid could possibly experience evil, and therefore “good” must be relative since it is purely the absence of being bullied for the one being bullied. But is it?

Does the perpetrator of the bullying experience the “evil” you are speaking of? No, for the intentional bully it’s all “good.” He may be having a laugh and be feeling quite secure in his actions. So is the bully experiencing “good” to the extent that the victim is experiencing “evil.”

Real good cannot be merely the experience of the fallout of evil actions nor the mere absence of those experiences. Not merely feeling pleasure or pain, since the evil person in the exchange is experience pleasure, but the good – or at least innocent – one is experiencing the pain. Yet, the evil isn’t in the experience, but in the intentions and actions of the one perpetrating it.

The bully is doing evil, is being evil, but may even experience that as “it’s all good.” Therefore the equivalency you claim cannot be an adequate one to describe or explain the real nature of evil nor what evil actually is.

 

[Bradski]

If there was no good in the world, nobody could complain about evil. The idea of “good” would be a foreign concept.

Good and evil are relative concepts. If you can think of a world that is just all bad without any of the inhabitants having any idea whatsoever how their situation could be improved, then I would say you’d have a point.

But that is not possible.

The guy on your arctic world wouldn’t spend much time hoping to see a few girls on bikinis but he might wonder why the storm has destroyed his home or the famine has killed his children or disease his wife.

 

[Bradski]

The bully is doing evil, is being evil, but may even experience that as “it’s all good.” Therefore the equivalency you claim cannot be an adequate one to describe or explain the real nature of evil nor what evil actually is.

Did you miss the bit where I said it is all relative?

 

[Tomdstone]

There is more than one definition of evil. For example, evil could be something morally wrong, or it could mean pain and suffering inflicted on innocent people.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Did you miss the bit where I said it is all relative?

Oh, you were merely trying to SAY it is all relative, you weren’t actually trying to demonstrate, show or in any way PROVE that it is all relative.

I see.

So now you will move forward to attempt to prove your claim?

I am all ears. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

 

[Bradski]

Oh, you were merely trying to SAY it is all relative, you weren’t actually trying to demonstrate, show or in any way PROVE that it is all relative.

I see.

So now you will move forward to attempt to prove your claim?

I am all ears. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

Just tell me if you’ve had a good day or a bad day.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Did you miss the bit where I said it is all relative?

Let me be clear where the problem lies.

The bully is doing what every good moral agent with a properly working conscience would say is an evil deed. The bully has the perspective that beating up or otherwise harassing the victim is “good” as far as he, the bully, is concerned. He is getting an emotional kick out of his actions.

You are saying, “Yup, what is good for the bully is ‘good’ in the same sense that being free of harassment is good for the victim because simply stated, ‘It is all relative.’”

What you haven’t shown – just assumed, Brad – bhntygybn (cat walked across keyboard) is that “good” has no meaning except in the relative sense in which the bully and the victim use the word.

That is just the point, however. “Good” does have meaning because an objective moral adjudicator would say the bully’s actions are morally wrong even though the bully gets a euphoric feeling from pounding on the victim and that it is wrong for the victim to have to go through life suffering abuse – and that, not in any sense juxtaposed or relative to a pain free existence. It just is objectively wrong to cause others to suffer needlessly.

You haven’t disproved that objective sense of good and evil in which the bully is doing evil (despite enjoying ‘good’ feelings) and the victim is suffering evil (and not merely relative to the good of being free of that suffering.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

Just tell me if you’ve had a good day or a bad day.

Good and bad have many meanings, Brad. You can’t cash in on the inherent ambiguity of some words to make a compelling philosophical argument. We were speaking of “good” and “evil” in the uniquely moral sense of those words.