The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[hatsoff]

nope, read the thread, the tu qouque has already been tried.

So, you profess ignorance about the morality of God? You haven’t drawn any conclusions about it?

I find that tough to swallow.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So, you profess ignorance about the morality of God? You haven’t drawn any conclusions about it?

I find that tough to swallow.

you didnt read the thread did you? post #36.

 

[hatsoff]

you didnt read the thread did you? post #36.

I assume you’re referring to your defense that Catholics “draw our conclusions from the maximal qualities.” In that case, then agree that we do indeed have enough information to draw conclusions about the morality of God. You merely contend that we don’t have enough information to draw conclusions about the morality of God which conflict with your conclusions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I assume you’re referring to your defense that Catholics “draw our conclusions from the maximal qualities.” In that case, then agree that we do indeed have enough information to draw conclusions about the morality of God.

whats this “we”?

i have enough information to conclude that G-d is omnibenevolent, or perfectly good from the maximal qualities.

you do not. unless you accept those very same maximal qualities, thereby admitting the existence and perfect goodness of G-d. a self defeating proposition.

without that admission you are left without any information but that which you can observe, leaving you in the position demonstrated in the OP.

further, i think it likely this is a fallacious use of the tu quoque in that even were i wrong, the argument still holds, because even if i am wrong, you are still wrong.

the tu quoque fails either way.

 

[hatsoff]

whats this “we”?

i have enough information to conclude that G-d is omnibenevolent, or perfectly good from the maximal qualities.

you do not. unless you accept those very same maximal qualities, thereby admitting the existence and perfect goodness of G-d. a self defeating proposition.

without that admission you are left without any information but that which you can observe, leaving you in the position demonstrated in the OP.

further, i think it likely this is a fallacious use of the tu quoque in that even were i wrong, the argument still holds, because even if i am wrong, you are still wrong.

the tu quoque fails either way.

I have not made an argument, tu quoque or otherwise. I am merely seeking to correct a misstatement on your part: For you have mentioned that we do indeed have enough information to draw conclusions about the morality of God–so long as they are not contrary to yours, of course.

 

[grannymh]

i assume everyone knows the Problem of Evil. but your right. which terms do you need a definition of?

How about definitions for the term problem (related to this particular thread) and the term evil? I don’t especially like the negative definition for evil which is --the lack of good. Is there a better definition which takes in evil acts per se? Can you put in the definition for problem like whose problem? Actually, I think these meanings would answer my earlier questions.

 

[grannymh]

im not the sharpest tool in the shed.

But you certainly are the most useful.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have not made an argument, tu quoque or otherwise. I am merely seeking to correct a misstatement on your part: For you have mentioned that we do indeed have enough information to draw conclusions about the morality of God–so long as they are not contrary to yours, of course.

i absolutley did not say that. i defy you to post where i made this statement,

“we do indeed have enough information to draw conclusions about the morality of God–so long as they are not contrary to yours, of course”

so there is no misstatement, you use 2 fallacies to construe what doesnt exist

1. the fallacy of composition. (supposing that we have the same properties in regard to information)
2. the tu quoque fallacy. (yes, you are making the argument)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Tu quoque (pronounced /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, from Latin for “You, too” or “You, also”) is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[1]

now, what you are terming a misstatement is an attempt to make the tu quoque argument, instead of attacking the premise.

but lets say that you were right, that neither of us could draw a valid conclusion of G-ds morality. in that case the argument would still hold. you would still be in the position described in the OP

so no matter how you attempt to phrase it, the argument holds, you still cant draw valid conclusions. independent of whether i can or not.

 

[Oreoracle]

if you cant have a valid conclusion, then you really dont have anything but opinion, the flaw in the POE. so you cant declaim the existence of G-d as moral atheists typically do.

Have you visited every continent? How could you possibly know that all seven continents exist if you haven’t visited them? Somewhere along the line, you have to settle for making assumptions and taking educated guesses. I’m sorry that this upsets you so much that you’re unable to cope with it.

i havent seen a question that i cant answer. please point out which one you are refering too. i probably thought it wasnt germane to the issue of the premise. but lets see.

It’s pretty simple, Petey: answer everything with a question mark that is contained in my last paragraph or two about free will, which you disregarded. I wrote the paragraph, you quoted it only to dismiss it, I quoted your dismissal, and you responded with the quote I’m responding to right now. Retrace your steps.

your tagline belies your motivation, only im not humbled by greater arrogance. thats a weakness i dont possess among my many other faults.

Now you’ve attempted to insult me by taking my signature out of context. My signature refers to the tendency of fanatics to only adopt a more moderate position when they see even greater fanaticism expressed by their peers. In other words, humans have a tendency to notice their errors when they are exhibited on a larger scale by other humans. Would you disagree that this is true for many people?

i dont see the distinction, either way the person is dead. if you pass by a dying man, that is as evil as the person who injured him.

Correct, the result is the same. I hardly think it’s logical to attach a moral value to inaction, however, since inaction is a lack of something. We can say that an inactive person’s behaviors are lacking in goodness, but we can’t say they’ve done wrong by doing nothing. That’s nonsensical.

But we can point to their intentions, which are quite possibly different. The first person might have cared for the starving children, but also might not have been willing to sacrifice financial comfort to save them, or perhaps he didn’t think his money would be properly used (which is often the case). The murderer, however, wished to cause suffering or end a happy life. Is their a difference in the morality of these two individuals? I would say so.

yet it doesnt, you draw G-ds morality from your observation. which we know are limited. we draw our conclusions from the maximal qualities. 2 different approaches.

Until you explain it, I will regard your approach as imaginary. As our discussion stands, you are as limited as I.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Have you visited every continent? How could you possibly know that all seven continents exist if you haven’t visited them? Somewhere along the line, you have to settle for making assumptions and taking educated guesses. I’m sorry that this upsets you so much that you’re unable to cope with it.

so we should just make up an invalid conclusion, because thats all we can do? that would be called lying. that sort of thing is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

It’s pretty simple, Petey: answer everything with a question mark that is contained in my last paragraph or two about free will, which you disregarded. I wrote the paragraph, you quoted it only to dismiss it, I quoted your dismissal, and you responded with the quote I’m responding to right now. Retrace your steps.

i assume you mean this.

This is much more complex than it sounds. You see, the idea of free will is used against determinists who claim that all of our actions are determined by the qualities of our bodies, such as genes, instincts, preferences, etc., and of the environment. But what is the faculty of free will? Does it possess qualities? If it does, it is no different than the other factors that determine our actions. If it doesn’t, how could we hope to use it? If something doesn’t have qualities, it doesn’t exist.

Can you explain how you go about making a choice, and what this tells us about free will?

And obviously, we disagree on what is beneficial, meaning that it’s subjective.

you never answered my dismissal, you just expanded your first statement.

i didnt avoid them, they just dont have a bearing on the premise, as i told you before, if you want an in depth discussion of free will start a thread. unless you can show how free will affect the premise of this argument? does it in some way allow you to have more information? not by any way that occurs to me.

Now you’ve attempted to insult me by taking my signature out of context. My signature refers to the tendency of fanatics to only adopt a more moderate position when they see even greater fanaticism expressed by their peers. In other words, humans have a tendency to notice their errors when they are exhibited on a larger scale by other humans. Would you disagree that this is true for many people?

my mistake.

Correct, the result is the same. I hardly think it’s logical to attach a moral value to inaction, however, since inaction is a lack of something. We can say that an inactive person’s behaviors are lacking in goodness, but we can’t say they’ve done wrong by doing nothing. That’s nonsensical.

inaction is just a lack of action, not a lack of good. inaction is only evil when one had a responsibility to do good.

But we can point to their intentions, which are quite possibly different. The first person might have cared for the starving children, but also might not have been willing to sacrifice financial comfort to save them, or perhaps he didn’t think his money would be properly used (which is often the case). The murderer, however, wished to cause suffering or end a happy life. Is their a difference in the morality of these two individuals? I would say so.

i dont see a moral difference between causing a death and not preventing it if you can.

however, if you want too talk about the maximal qualities start a thread, or wait till i do, just like the free will argument, it doesnt validate a tu quoque argument. even if i were wrong, you would still be wrong.

Until you explain it, I will regard your approach as imaginary. As our discussion stands, you are as limited as I.

you can keep trying to make a tu quoque fallacy if you wish, you already admitted the argument.

but even were that true, and i was as information limited as you, that still doesnt make your conclusions valid. thats why even a legitimate tu quoqe would fail. even if i am wrong, youre still wrong.

i know that you may really want to be an athiest, i did when i was one. but if you cling to an argument that you admit is wrong, then how are you any different then the theists you decry for holding on to their emotional beliefs?

 

[Oreoracle]

so we should just make up an invalid conclusion, because thats all we can do? that would be called lying. that sort of thing is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Would I be lying if I said Antarctica exists, since I’ve never experienced it? Would I be lying if I said World Wars I & II occured, since I didn’t live to experience them? Or what if I said that this is 2009 A.D.? According to you, I don’t have an adequate amount of information to draw these conclusions, so I’m lying. Heck, you might not even be human! How can I say you are, when I clearly don’t have enough information?

you never answered my dismissal, you just expanded your first statement.

One can’t answer a dismissal, since dismissals have no substance.

you can keep trying to make a tu quoque fallacy if you wish, you already admitted the argument.

So I finally looked up this fallacy you keep talking about. Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t apply to me in the least. I would only be commiting the fallacy if I discredited your argument because you’re a hypocrite (in other words, “because you contradicted your current claim at some point”). I am, however, simply noting that you’re a hypocrite, and I am not discrediting your argument in the least. The argument, as I’ve said, is valid. This doesn’t mean it’s useful, though. As I’ve demonstrated at the beginning of this post, a world without assumptions would be a nightmare. Your argument doesn’t help with our advancement, it merely says, “Why try? We could be lying to ourselves!” Meanwhile, most of our assumptions are correct and are necessary for our survival, such as the assumption that your doctor has given you the correct medication, since you couldn’t possibly know for certain that he has.

i know that you may really want to be an athiest, i did when i was one. but if you cling to an argument that you admit is wrong, then how are you any different then the theists you decry for holding on to their emotional beliefs?

I am different because I don’t try to justify needless suffering. It’s that simple. There are other issues I have, of course, but most are derived from that.

But this is where it gets interesting, because I think you really want to be a Christian. Life must be easy when one believes they are loved by an omnipotent, omniscient being. It must be easy to be able to run to God anytime one feels that they aren’t loved by their peers. Lastly, but certainly not least, life must be easy if one believes that this isn’t the only life they’ll have. And if you claim that it’s not easy, I’ll unashamedly say that you probably don’t believe it, then. No one really believes in an afterlife…we all cry at funerals. We all doubt and combat the strong possibility that our deceased relatives are gone forever.

No, accepting the harsh possibility that your friends and family may be the only real support that you have and that this may be the only life you’ll have is much more difficult to come to terms with.

 

[MindOverMatter]

See my comment to Petey, above. I see a distinct difference between not doing good and doing bad, which leads me to believe that badness is considered a thing in itself.

You only know about evil, because the good is not present in some act. You know of evil in relation to what ought to be there, which is the “good” act.

Tell me: is there a difference between allowing someone to die (say, by failing to donate to help starving children in India) and killing them (say, by breaking into their home and stabbing them to death)? How can inaction rightfully be equated to an action, in this case?

The good is not being done. A good act is not present, but only assuming there is no good reason not to act in these particular situations.

Uh-huh. So I guess “moving quickly” must mean “moving, but not slowly” and “moving slowly” must mean “moving, but not quickly.” It doesn’t do much good to define a concept by its opposite.

I don’t understand what you are saying here and how it relates to a privation of good. For there to be such a thing as evil, there must be that which is ultimately, objectively, and perfectly good in order that we can truthfully measure somebodies behavior against it in terms of objective truth. The good must exist absolutely before there can be any evil, thus evil is not a being in its own right. Also such a perfection must exist as an actual being in order to be meaningful in terms of objective truth, since perfection cannot lack being. Thus evil cannot be a thing in itself in the sense that we are talking about an actual being that exists objectively. When we talk of evil, we are talking about a lack of good action. Evil has no meaning or reality outside of that interpretation in so far as we are speaking about that which is objectively true of human acts.

 

[hatsoff]

i absolutley did not say that. i defy you to post where i made this statement,

“we do indeed have enough information to draw conclusions about the morality of God–so long as they are not contrary to yours, of course”

I attributed to you the thought, not the words. Please note my avoidance of quotation marks.

Now consider that you have said:

1. “you [Oreoracle] draw G-ds morality from your observation. which we know are limited. we draw our conclusions from the maximal qualities.” --post 36
2. “you [Oreoracle] lack sufficient information to draw valid conclusions concerning the morality of G-d.” --post 31

I take this to mean that you think we have enough information to draw certain conclusions about the morality of God–for indeed you claim to have drawn such conclusions–but not other conclusions, such as the ones you attribute to Oreoracle. In other words, you are contending that we don’t have enough information to draw conclusions contrary to yours.

so there is no misstatement, you use 2 fallacies to construe what doesnt exist

1. the fallacy of composition. (supposing that we have the same properties in regard to information)

1. the tu quoque fallacy. (yes, you are making the argument)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

now, what you are terming a misstatement is an attempt to make the tu quoque argument, instead of attacking the premise.

but lets say that you were right, that neither of us could draw a valid conclusion of G-ds morality. in that case the argument would still hold. you would still be in the position described in the OP

so no matter how you attempt to phrase it, the argument holds, you still cant draw valid conclusions. independent of whether i can or not.

I can only assure you that I am not making any such argument. I don’t know why you are insisting that I am.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Would I be lying if I said Antarctica exists, since I’ve never experienced it?

if you knew it was an invalid conclusion, yes you would be a liar.

Would I be lying if I said World Wars I & II occured, since I didn’t live to experience them?

if you knew it was an invalid conclusion, yes you would be a liar.

Or what if I said that this is 2009 A.D.?

if you knew it was an invalid conclusion, yes you would be a liar.

According to you, I don’t have an adequate amount of information to draw these conclusions, so I’m lying.

i never said you dont have enough information to know these things, obviously we do, we have physical evidence of their concrete reality, thats not the situation we are discussing.

its an attempt at a strawman argument.

One can’t answer a dismissal, since dismissals have no substance.

sure one can, you could show how the argument is relevant to the premise of the OP. you havent. so let me ask again, how is does it prove or disprove the argument posted in the OP?

So I finally looked up this fallacy you keep talking about.

you just now looked up an argument youve been denying? you mean your here arguing a position that you didnt even know? thats laughable. it indicates that you arent interested in the truth of the OP, rather in just holding on to a cherished belief.

Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t apply to me in the least. I would only be commiting the fallacy if I discredited your argument because you’re a hypocrite (in other words, “because you contradicted your current claim at some point”). ** I am, however, simply noting that you’re a hypocrite, **and I am not discrediting your argument in the least.

you apparently didnt read all of what a tu quoque argument is. its a sub-class of an ad hominem fallacy, an attack on the person. which you are clearly doing by calling me a hypocrite.
so you are making a tu quoque.

so exactly how am i a hypocrite? we dont draw our conclusions on morality from the same source, you draw conclusions from the information you have about various events, i draw conclusions on G-ds morality from the maximal qualities that we infer from the maximal state of being.

how is that hypocritical? because i wont delve into maximal qualities on this thread, because they dont impact the preimise? not much of a basis for an ad hominem.

The argument, as I’ve said, is valid. This doesn’t mean it’s useful, though. As I’ve demonstrated at the beginning of this post, a world without assumptions would be a nightmare. Your argument doesn’t help with our advancement, it merely says, “Why try? We could be lying to ourselves!”

no, thats a straw man again, it says that you cant draw valid conclusions. to do so is intellectually dishonest. you cant base advancement on false premise’, imagine how science, mathematics, or medicine might work if we just ignored the invalid nature of our conclusions and used them anyway.?

that would be a nightmare.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Meanwhile, most of our assumptions are correct and are necessary for our survival, such as the assumption that your doctor has given you the correct medication, since you couldn’t possibly know for certain that he has.

sure you can, you just read the bottle, verify through chemical analysis, etc. but this is another strawman, you can never verify the validity of your conclusions about G-ds morality, because you dont have a way to verify them as you do where you can access all the relevant information.

I am different because I don’t try to justify needless suffering. It’s that simple. There are other issues I have, of course, but most are derived from that.

you dont have a valid way to say that the suffering was needless. thats the conclusion that the the OP demonstrates is invalid. it is apparently the basis of your atheism, if it falls, then why are you an atheist? cherished belief.

But this is where it gets interesting, because I think you really want to be a Christian. Life must be easy when one believes they are loved by an omnipotent, omniscient being. It must be easy to be able to run to God anytime one feels that they aren’t loved by their peers. Lastly, but certainly not least, life must be easy if one believes that this isn’t the only life they’ll have. And if you claim that it’s not easy, I’ll unashamedly say that you probably don’t believe it, then. No one really believes in an afterlife…we all cry at funerals. We all doubt and combat the strong possibility that our deceased relatives are gone forever.

No, accepting the harsh possibility that your friends and family may be the only real support that you have and that this may be the only life you’ll have is much more difficult to come to terms with.

not in the least. as an atheist, i could do what i wanted when i wanted. i could bed any girl that was willing, party all the time, i didnt have to care about anyone but myself. i could make any business deal that benefitted me, regardless of its affect on others. i talked about human decency, but now i realize that i didnt really know what that was. it was empty talk that was revealed as soon as i had to make a decision involving a significant sacrifice of my desires. life is much more difficult now than it ever was before.

now, though im poor, i have to give my tithe, i have to do something when i see someone hungry or homeless, i have to spend time praying everyday, i have to go to confession and church even when i dont feel like it. i have to treat other people fairly even when it is detrimental to my desires or my financial well being. the hardest for me is being celibate. its extremely difficult. ive had a lot of “friends with benefits” over the years, telling them no, when every fiber of my body wants nothing more than to feel a womans hands against my skin, to taste her kiss, is a certain kind of agony.

Catholicism requires many such sacrifices, mortifying the flesh in celibacy and ascetic mortifications is uncomfortable and painful, one only does such things from real belief, certainty that by such suffering, one may join in the redemptive suffering of Christ for all mankind. it is certainty that ones life is not lived only for ones own desires, that there is some purpose beyond the next beer, the next woman, or the next material thing i can buy. it is the ultimate mystical Truth. rationalism is simply the sword i was given as an atheist, i found that it cuts both ways. now here i am.

my cousin passed a few months ago, we all cried, we are going to miss him, but we dried our eyes, carried on. there is hope that we will see him again.

it would have been much easier to deal with as an atheist. he was a machine, a chemical nanocellular robot, a mere expression of random chemical interactions. having no value beyond those consituent chemicals and his utility value. crying would simply have been an expression of this nanocellulars robots emotion control circuits. meaning nothing then, in the grand scheme of things.

the fact that we love people beyond their utility value indicates that they have some value beyond what they can do for us, to me an atheist crying at a funeral implicitly admits to this greater value. it seems a disconnect between what an atheist should believe and what they really do. if there is no G-d we are all just bags of chemicals who really have no value. why be sad? because we all implicitly believe that there is more to this life than being a simple bag of chemicals.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Now consider that you have said:

1. “you [Oreoracle] draw G-ds morality from your observation. which we know are limited. we draw our conclusions from the maximal qualities.” --post 36
2. “you [Oreoracle] lack sufficient information to draw valid conclusions concerning the morality of G-d.” --post 31

I take this to mean that you think we have enough information to draw certain conclusions about the morality of God–for indeed you claim to have drawn such conclusions–but not other conclusions, such as the ones you attribute to Oreoracle. In other words, you are contending that we don’t have enough information to draw conclusions contrary to yours.

same assertion, same answer.

yet it doesnt, you draw G-ds morality from your observation. which we know are limited. we draw our conclusions from the maximal qualities. 2 different approaches.

so what kills the POE doesnt kill omnibenevolence.

–#36

whats this “we”?

i have enough information to conclude that G-d is omnibenevolent, or perfectly good from the maximal qualities.

you do not. unless you accept those very same maximal qualities, thereby admitting the existence and perfect goodness of G-d. a self defeating proposition.

without that admission you are left without any information but that which you can observe, leaving you in the position demonstrated in the OP.

further, i think it likely this is a fallacious use of the tu quoque in that even were i wrong, the argument still holds, because even if i am wrong, you are still wrong.

the tu quoque fails either way.

–44

there is no “we” you have one source of information about G-ds morality, you have another source of information about G-d morality.

I can only assure you that I am not making any such argument. I don’t know why you are insisting that I am.

because you are, inadvertantly or not. ive posted what a tu quoque argument is

Tu quoque (pronounced /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, from Latin for “You, too” or “You, also”) is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[1]

you have also made the fallacy of composition by assuming that we share the same sources of information.

now, even were you right the argument holds because if i am wrong you are still wrong, making it the tu quoque fallacy

so this contention

In other words, you are contending that we don’t have enough information to draw conclusions contrary to yours.

is not my contention at all. your cherry picking and using fallacies to draw a contention not found oin the argument.

 

[hatsoff]

Well, if you insist on attributing to me arguments I have not made, there’s not much I can do in this discussion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, if you insist on attributing to me arguments I have not made, there’s not much I can do in this discussion.

im not just attributing it, ive shown evidence that in fact you are making the tu quoque argument. i have further shown that in both the cases of a legitimate tu quoque and a fallacious application of the argumment, neither affects the validity of the premise of the OP. i dont see what the big deal is, once it was clearly shown, why not admit it? its not a crime. i do such things all the time. simply insisting you are not without showing why you are not doesnt make sense to me.

 

[Oreoracle]

if you knew it was an invalid conclusion, yes you would be a liar.

I don’t. I believe that there are seven continents because it would be odd for the media, geographers, and historians throughout recorded history to lie about the existence of other continents. It would have to be an elaborate scheme to bring about some unimaginable, convoluted end. Because I see no reason why professionals and a good deal of the human population would lie about such a thing, I assume they are being honest when they say they’ve explored other continents, though I have not. Now, do you consider my conclusion that there are other continents reasonable, even though I haven’t experienced them?

if you knew it was an invalid conclusion, yes you would be a liar.

See above.

if you knew it was an invalid conclusion, yes you would be a liar.

See above.

i never said you dont have enough information to know these things, obviously we do, we have physical evidence of their concrete reality, thats not the situation we are discussing.

its an attempt at a strawman argument.

We? No my friend… I DON’T (I’m not shouting, just emphasizing) have the information necessary with your standards, since I haven’t examined the evidence myself. I haven’t visited other continents, nor have I been around long enough for the World Wars or to know for certain what the year is. I’ve learned these things in school, and I trust the authorities who provide me this information. Is it reasonable for me to draw these conclusions, even though I haven’t scrutinized the evidence? If not, then we might as well do away with schooling, since kids should have to experience things firsthand according to your standards, else they might be placing their trust in lies.

sure one can, you could show how the argument is relevant to the premise of the OP. you havent. so let me ask again, how is does it prove or disprove the argument posted in the OP?

It’s not necessarily relevant, I just wanted to know if you can answer the question as you claim.

you just now looked up an argument youve been denying? you mean your here arguing a position that you didnt even know? thats laughable. it indicates that you arent interested in the truth of the OP, rather in just holding on to a cherished belief.

Well, there’s a funny thing called induction…You see, if you misunderstand me once, then do it again immediately after the first offense, then again, and again, I can safely assume that it will occur the next time. And (surprise!) you’ve again attributed my arguments to fallacious reasoning, when no such fallacy was used. It is not fallacious to call you a hypocrite. It would be fallacious for me to say, “You’re a hypocrite, therefore your argument is invalid.” but I haven’t said such a thing. Not all insults are ad hominems, only those used as arguments are. And my intention wasn’t even to insult you, really.

you apparently didnt read all of what a tu quoque argument is. its a sub-class of an ad hominem fallacy, an attack on the person. which you are clearly doing by calling me a hypocrite.
so you are making a tu quoque.

See above. Please try again.

You can shout “Ad hominem!” all day, but until you know more about those arguments (namely, that they must be arguments, which you seem to be unaware of), the majority of your accusations are laughable.

 

[Oreoracle]

sure you can, you just read the bottle, verify through chemical analysis, etc.

That’s true. Tell me: do you verify that your medication is correct via chemical analysis? (labels are placed on the wrong bottles all the time, so that hardly counts as verification) If not, how is your belief that you’ve received the correct medication any more than an assumption caused by trusting an authority figure?

you dont have a valid way to say that the suffering was needless. thats the conclusion that the the OP demonstrates is invalid.

Alright, let’s go through this step by step:

We live in a world of cause and effect, action and reaction. Now, let A represent a particular action and let B represent a particular result of A. We can then express a particular causal chain as such: “If A, then B.”

Now, let’s make the variables represent specific terms: A will represent an action that entails X amount of suffering, and B will represent a result of A which entails an amount of happiness that is greater than X. Christians will usually claim that God causing A is moral, since the action is necessary to produce more happiness (B outweighs the detrimental effects of A). This requires one to disregard God’s omnipotence, however. God is not at all affected by causality, since he supposedly created the law and performed miracles (logically contradictory actions that cannot be explained). This means that God can make B the case while completely bypassing the means, A, which might have been necessary for a being affected by causality but is not at all necessary for God. In short, God does not have to pay a toll to cross a bridge; he does not have to use any means to attain his goals. The only time that it would be necessary for God to cause suffering is if causing suffering was his goal. This would hardly make for a praiseworthy character.

it is apparently the basis of your atheism, if it falls, then why are you an atheist? cherished belief.

Why would I choose to deceive myself? My life was easier when I held some belief (albeit a weak one) in God. Why fear death if the afterlife awaits? In fact, I would rather burn in Hell for eternity than not exist. Oblivion is a scary thing to think of, and religion would free me from the fear, if only I could take part in the wishful thinking.

Step back and look at it from my perspective: religion is too perfect. They are all designed to make people comfortable by eliminating fear and doubt. There is, of course, the one catch that makes it all worth it for the designers: you have to place yourself in servitude to a religious institution on Earth in order to attain a better future in the afterlife (and by that time, even if the institution was wrong about the afterlife, you’re long gone). Surprising? Not really.

not in the least. as an atheist, i could do what i wanted when i wanted. i could bed any girl that was willing, party all the time, i didnt have to care about anyone but myself. i could make any business deal that benefitted me, regardless of its affect on others.

You can do whatever you want now, as can I. But I am able to restrict myself from acting on baser desires, which shows that religion is not required for such an achievement to take place. Just because you couldn’t muster up the willpower to act decently before you believed in God, doesn’t mean the same applies to me or others. You have your incentives, and we have ours. Who are you to say that your incentives for acting morally are better than, say, mine?

I’m sorry to hear that your cousin has died, but you misunderstand my position. Perhaps if you didn’t lump all atheists in one category, you’d be more successful in debates.