The atheists best argument?

[Bradski]

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.

No we are not. We have been talking about natural disasters as well as various diseases. No morality involved in becoming ill. And even if we include moral acts, then go for your life.

Maybe somebody shot your dog or stole your car or beat your wife.

So again, how was your day?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event 66 million years ago was a natural disaster (evil) that quickly wiped out three quarters of all plants and animals. Among those animals that were not wiped out were the ancestors of humans. Even to those ancestors it must have been a dark (evil) time to be alive and survive. Yet the removal of all the species that perished (dinosaurs, etc.) made room for the evolution of human life. This was a long range consequence of the disaster event that brought about to some degree the good of humanity insofar as man came to dominate the planet.

So when natural disasters occur, they may be occurring for a long range good. Those who get in the way of such events may perish, but there may be long range goods that cannot be perceived immediately, and without which the laws of nature would be disastrously frustrated.

Naturally, this is small comfort to the atheist, who sees in death the finality of life and nothingness beyond. But if the atheist is wrong, there is something beyond death, and it is comfort to many that the something is greater than any good in this life if the life lived was worthy of that something.

Socrates said the purpose of life is to die well. Floods fire or famine cannot stop us from dying well.

 

[Tomdstone]

Socrates said the purpose of life is to die well.

Different people will have different views on what dying well means.

 

[Frankenfurter]

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…

I think we all can relate to your feelings on this subject.

It is of course a great mystery.

But I am comforted to know that Jesus has recognized our need for an answer, and he gives us his Beatitudes. But the saints have given us even more.

St. Bernard would note that your feelings are part of having passed the 2nd rung in the scafold of love (but there are 5 steps to sainthood). If you bear with me please then…

The first step is to love others for what they can do for you.

The second step is to love others for their own sake. (This is where most of us are.)

Now when we see others suffer, especially the innocent, our attainment of the 2nd rung of this scaffold of love invokes a feeling of empathy, but, having not attained the higher levels, we stop there and begin to doubt.

The third level is to love God for what he can do for you. This is one’s initial acceptance of God as a savior, or as one who can give you eternal life, etc. The thoughts concerning God are centered on what he can do for you. We are now can be comforted by the beatitudes for the poor suffering souls.

But next, there is the rarefied air of the 4th rung which is to love God for his own sake. Comprehending God, or having encounters with him directly can be a true transcendent joy.

But then there is the 5th rung that St Bernard says has only been attained by the saints. That is, to love others for God’s sake.

Jesus wants us all to achieve the 5th rung. And in a world like that, I can be sure that none of the intentional evil you describe exists. But we are not there yet.

Apparently, in order to get there, we must pass through these lower levels as St Bernard described. There is no way to jump a level of the scaffold. I am comforted only to know that God must think it is worth it, even though that we 2nd-rungers can’t see it that way.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Different people will have different views on what dying well means.

So what inference can we draw from that?

Are they all correct no matter what their views? None are? Or some views are better than others?

There is either some standard for dying well or there is isn’t. Which is it?

You can’t just point out that different people have different views and leave it there. Complete the thought…

Is there no standard for dying well or is there one? How do you know?

 

[Tomdstone]

Or some views are better than others?

IMHO, yes.

 

[Peter_Plato]

IMHO, yes.

Oh, good, we are getting somewhere.

Not far, but somewhere.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Different people will have different views on what dying well means.

Yes, some people think that if you die with lots of toys, you die well.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course not.
It’s a myth because the so-called facts of it are suspect.

.

You mean you think they are suspect?

Or you mean that there is proof they are suspect?

Where the proof they are suspect?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I like that Voltaire, but like anyone…he wasn’t always right.

Perhaps the Roman Senate was just a group of power-hungry men who, like many power hungry men in history and in present day–be they theists or not–make unwise decisions.

Besides, I’m not sure why he calls them atheists in his essay. The Roman Senate operated under religious boundaries and made sacrifices to the gods before each meeting began and looked for divine omens and held their meetings in areas dedicated to the gods.
That does not sound so atheist.

Voltaire also wrote:
“Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world."

I’m sure Voltaire didn’t mean to say that Christ was the most absurd and bloodiest prophet ever to infect the world. I think that title goes to another prophet from a later period of human history.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Why do you say nature abhors a vacuum?
I see plenty of good without Gods.
I see plenty of places where there is no God, and a devil is not in play.

But you should see a lot more evil without God.

And the good you see with God is transparently claimed to be from God, whereas it is the atheists who will ally themselves with the forces of evil, as Stalin, Mao and so many other atheists have proven by murdering millions of people.

huffingtonpost.com/entry/school-church-state-satan-atheism-colorado_us_56fd3ff0e4b083f5c606f5fe

 

[Peter_Plato]

But just because a stream may flow from a river, that still does not mean we cannot have good without gods.

.

Actually, streams don’t flow from rivers. Streams flow into rivers by joining together to form rivers.

The headwaters of rivers are always tiny rivulets in higher elevations that progressively join together and get larger as they flow downwards toward the lakes, seas and oceans at lower elevations towards which they flow.

Again, streams don’t flow FROM rivers.

I could make the rhetorical point that your view of streams and rivers is about as backwards as your view of whence morality arises, but I’ll let it go since that wouldn’t be an argument, merely an observation about patterns of thought and the need to understand how things work before drawing embarrassing conclusions.

Since you are clearly in error concerning a SIMPLE geological point about streams flowing FROM rivers, we can at least doubt your ability to judge whether or not there can be good without God, since that is a far more complex and esoteric issue than the physics of water flow.

Note: Changing God to “gods” (as you do) reframes the entire discussion and reveals that you simply don’t understand that the nature of God in classical theism is nothing like the nature of the gods of paganism or polytheism. The difference between God and gods (which you cannot seem to comprehend) is something analogous to why streams don’t and cannot flow from rivers. It requires a far broader understanding of metaphysics than you seem to exhibit, just as noticing that streams don’t flow from rivers requires a far broader understanding of physics and geography/geology than you appear to have.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why do you say nature abhors a vacuum?
I see plenty of good without Gods.
I see plenty of places where there is no God, and a devil is not in play.

.

That would be because you don’t understand the connection of God to Being or existence itself and to our human capacity to even recognize ‘good’ when we see it.

 

[wanstronian]

But you should see a lot more evil without God.

And the good you see with God is transparently claimed to be from God, whereas it is the atheists who will ally themselves with the forces of evil, as Stalin, Mao and so many other atheists have proven by murdering millions of people.

huffingtonpost.com/entry/school-church-state-satan-atheism-colorado_us_56fd3ff0e4b083f5c606f5fe

You don’t truly believe that this is “atheists allying themselves with the forces of evil?” This is purely to prove a point. You should know by now, straw men make poor arguments.

And invoking the “evil” actions of atheists in an attempt to prove that their “evil” was because they were atheists - you should know better, and you diminish your arguments when you embrace such tactics.

I don’t believe we would see any more “evil” without god. Unless you are saying that a significant proportion of believers are inherently inclined towards “evil” acts and it’s only their belief in / fear of god that keeps them from fulfilling their desires. I would then call that a mental health issue, not a benefit of belief.

 

[wanstronian]

Actually, streams don’t flow from rivers. Streams flow into rivers by joining together to form rivers.

The headwaters of rivers are always tiny rivulets in higher elevations that progressively join together and get larger as they flow downwards toward the lakes, seas and oceans at lower elevations towards which they flow.

Again, streams don’t flow FROM rivers.

I could make the rhetorical point that your view of streams and rivers is about as backwards as your view of whence morality arises, but I’ll let it go since that wouldn’t be an argument, merely an observation about patterns of thought and the need to understand how things work before drawing embarrassing conclusions.

Since you are clearly in error concerning a SIMPLE geological point about streams flowing FROM rivers, we can at least doubt your ability to judge whether or not there can be good without God, since that is a far more complex and esoteric issue than the physics of water flow.

Note: Changing God to “gods” (as you do) reframes the entire discussion and reveals that you simply don’t understand that the nature of God in classical theism is nothing like the nature of the gods of paganism or polytheism. The difference between God and gods (which you cannot seem to comprehend) is something analogous to why streams don’t and cannot flow from rivers. It requires a far broader understanding of metaphysics than you seem to exhibit, just as noticing that streams don’t flow from rivers requires a far broader understanding of physics and geography/geology than you appear to have.

That’s a lot of words for a simple non sequitur.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You don’t truly believe that this is “atheists allying themselves with the forces of evil?” This is purely to prove a point. You should know by now, straw men make poor arguments.

And invoking the “evil” actions of atheists in an attempt to prove that their “evil” was because they were atheists - you should know better, and you diminish your arguments when you embrace such tactics.

I don’t believe we would see any more “evil” without god. Unless you are saying that a significant proportion of believers are inherently inclined towards “evil” acts and it’s only their belief in / fear of god that keeps them from fulfilling their desires. I would then call that a mental health issue, not a benefit of belief.

Here’s the rub. Atheism says nothing about doing good or doing evil. That’s why Christianity will always have moral authority over atheism’s lack of any moral authority whatever.

 

[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. …

Evil is not a problem for the atheist. Their answer is, “That’s life, get on with it.” Evil can only be a problem for the theist. And, if evil is a problem for the theist, it can only be one of understanding God’s character since His existence for us is a given.

Why didn’t God create a world without suffering? The Catholic answer is: He did. But man chose to reject God’s will and exercise his own will. Man, not God, caused suffering to enter the world.

Why doesn’t God stop a Hitler or a Stalin or a Pol Pot or a Mao or me from choosing to cause another suffering? Because He keeps His word.

Do we have the wheelbase to understand God, the Architect of the universe? I think not. It would be easier for a dog to figure out the doorknob principle than for man to understand the mind of his Creator,
*
Larson, Gary. It Came From the Far Side. Kansas City: Andrews, McMeel, 1986.*
The caption reads, “Knowing how it could change the lives of canines everywhere, the dog scientists struggled diligently to understand the Doorknob principle”

 

[Nixbits]

Here’s the rub. Atheism says nothing about doing good or doing evil.

That’s true.

That’s why Christianity will always have moral authority over atheism’s lack of any moral authority whatever.

Here’s the rub. Christianity claims moral authority, but atheists deny the claim. Atheism, as an idea, may lack moral authority, but atheists don’t necessarily lack morals. A moral authority imposes morals from the outside. But there are other sources for moral values. Some of us are able to work them out for ourselves.

 

[Tomdstone]

Why didn’t God create a world without suffering? The Catholic answer is: He did. But man chose to reject God’s will and exercise his own will. Man, not God, caused suffering to enter the world.

Can man reject God’s will in heaven and cause suffering to enter there?

 

[tonyrey]

Here’s the rub. Atheism says nothing about doing good or doing evil. That’s why Christianity will always have moral authority over atheism’s lack of any moral authority whatever.

Irrefutable. If only matter exists nothing matters.