Two atheist arguments that cancel each other out

[JDaniel]

Still not the argument. If this God were certain to exist, my problem with him would ultimately be irrelevant. If he were not omni-potent or omni-benevolent, that would simply be the reality of the situation, and I would have to deal with it on those terms. As it stands, though, my problem is still with the people who insist on worshipping and praising this being under such fatuous pretenses.

ASimon:

You always remain a gentleman, which I like. (Just buttering you up!)

OK. I think I see where you are going. However, you and I both know that everyone is not equal to the next in intelligence. Can’t you forgive those that seem to be, well, shall we say, a little dumb? I’m sure there are those who haven’t thought it through, but, let us consider their souls. As a stupid person, I don’t have to have infinite knowledge in order to be on the “right” side.

And as I said, in order to deduce this conclusion, you need to, first, presuppose the existence of a spiritual world, then either completely mis-characterize the material world we’re living in, or completely abuse the common language we use to describe it.

But, doesn’t the materialist do just those things?

If I held the power of weather and disease in my hands, and went about randomly inflicting devastation and catastrophe on helpless people, based on nothing more apparent than what suited my whims at any given moment, would any sane person, for a second, think of describing me in terms of “Love” or “Mercy?” Even if I made sure to periodically dispense good fortune along with it?

Again, may I point out that our “providence” is like looking through a tiny hole formed by scrunching together our fingers into a little circle. God’s view is unlimited. We have no idea how misfortunes might play into what God wants from each of us. No idea. None whatsoever.

God bless,
jd

 

[atheistgirl]

I can practically feel the anger you have toward the Church coming through the screen

I have not one ounce of anger towards the Church, the Catholic church or any other Church, faith, or belief.

I defy you to go through my posts and find even one post where I was even disrespectful, never mind angry.

I can’t help but feel you saw the word atheist, and just assumed anything said must be infused with anger at your Church, but I would gladly be wrong on that.

Sarah x

 

[JDaniel]

You needn’t suggest this, because Epicurus beat you to the punch something like 2300 years ago. And as Epicurus implied back then, this is much more your problem than mine. I never had to worry about worshipping this being in the first place.

ASimon:

Nope. This is not a problem for me. I’m good with it. Besides, I’ve never “worried” about “worshipping this being.”

What about you?

God bless,
jd

 

[brumano]

QUOTE=ASimon;9410265]Not really. I wasn’t asking why bad things happen to good people. I’m asking why Christians insist on calling these bad things, for which God holds ultimate responsibility, evidence of his “love” and “mercy.”

On one hand you say that, since our mortal existence is so insignificant compared to eternity, any suffering we endure is also insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I don’t think this meets my objection, really. Suffering is suffering, and some people are profoundly unlucky in this life. All other things being equal, is it really evidence of God’s love and mercy that such people endure so much pain, while others enjoy lives of relative peace and happiness? I wouldn’t ask for Heaven on Earth - intermittent unhappiness, pain, and inconvenience are basically unavoidable, even for the luckiest of us - but I would ask that we use words like Love and Mercy to mean what they’re supposed to mean.

Leading me to your second point, that basically, we are God’s playthings, and he can with us whatever he wishes. I’m happy that you’re happy with this - though, I don’t see why this can’t be true without all the nonsense of pretending that everything God does is consistent with Love. God can have created the Universe, all of us within it, and exercise ultimate authority over what happens to us, and nothing about this need compel us to abuse language every time a child turns up with leukemia or a tsunami wipes out a city before breakfast

The bad thing that was done to His Son on the cross was not all God’s responsibility if you mean responsibility as fault or cause as you seem to mean in the cases of the myriad human tragedies of the world, but yet God did take in person, full responsibility for all as love triumphs over hate in His person crucified, this is the bad thing that we point to calling it proof of God’s Love and Mercy. St. Paul makes an erstwhile arguement to the Greek philosiphers, “yes a good man will per chance die for a good man but show me a man who will die for his enemies” and the same challenge is to you The sad and terrible tragedies of this world that the athiest sees as more or less meaningless except as if they somehow disprove the revealed God are given meaning and immeasureable worth, only by the cumulative workings of a being who must be God. That much of this goes unappreciated to the human mind is not God’s fault, but He nevertheless loves on and on.

We don’t say this life is insignificant compared to eternity we say it is short, we say this life has immense signifigance since it is authored by an all loving God.

 

[atheistgirl]

I never had to worry about worshipping this being in the first place.

But which Being?

The God of the Jews, the Christian God, the Muslim God, the version of God Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons believe in?

It seems to me, if such a Being could be established, there still remains the problem of exactly what Being it is.

Could it be that if such a being existed, none of the current versions of religion have it right, and it is a completely different kind of being altoghther?

Seems to me there is still a ton of work to do from establishing that this being exists, to establishing it the personal, interventionist God of Christianity.

Sarah x

 

[mgoforth]

I have not one ounce of anger towards the Church, the Catholic church or any other Church, faith, or belief.

I defy you to go through my posts and find even one post where I was even disrespectful, never mind angry.

I can’t help but feel you saw the word atheist, and just assumed anything said must be infused with anger at your Church, but I would gladly be wrong on that.

Sarah x

I’m sorry I misread you. I took your statement at it’s face value…which to me sounded quite angry:

“…but not before all those parents of babies and children went through the anguish of thinking their innocent baby was in Limbo and no in heaven, as taught by so many bishops and priests of the Church.”

When I saw an emotionally charged word like “anguish”, and then saw the blame for that anguish being laid on “so many bishops and priests of the Church”, then I assumed anger or frustration toward the Church was your motive.

You say it wasn’t meant in anger so please accept my apology. There were no hurt feelings on my side, I just wanted to make sure you were ok.

 

[mgoforth]

But which Being?

The God of the Jews, the Christian God, the Muslim God, the version of God Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons believe in?

It seems to me, if such a Being could be established, there still remains the problem of exactly what Being it is.

Could it be that if such a being existed, none of the current versions of religion have it right, and it is a completely different kind of being altoghther?

Seems to me there is still a ton of work to do from establishing that this being exists, to establishing it the personal, interventionist God of Christianity.

Sarah x

What sort of work could be done to establish that God exists or who He really is? I can’t imagine that such a thing is “testable” in any science outside logic. Of course, many don’t see logic as a true science, but that’s another thread entirely…

 

[cranster]

to choose to leave Heaven would be pure insanity.

leaving heaven would be separating from God who is life itself. It would literally be choosing to be dead because there is no life without God, but with an immortal soul that would persist for ever only capable of experiencing God’s justice because it had forfeited God’s mercy in this life. It wouldn’t be like… hey I want to go do something else, I want to do my own thing… after this it’s only life or death which we are determining for ourselves now.

 

[atheistgirl]

I’m sorry I misread you. I took your statement at it’s face value…which to me sounded quite angry:

Not a problem. And thank you for your concern.

What sort of work could be done to establish that God exists or who He really is?

I think answering prayers in a manner that could be predictable and consistent to the extent that prayer would be confidently part of the medical toolbox would be a start, or at least give me pause for thought.

Sarah x

 

[Hokomai]

With reference to the OP, is the argument about heaven very common among atheists? I am not sure I have come across it in that context. I have heard it discussed between theists, wondering about the nature (eternal or not) or free will, and about the relationship of God and those in heaven. Can anyone cite some atheist references on this?

Also I agree with the point already made that atheists do not use the existence of phenomena that could not result from the actions of an all-powerful and all-loving God who intervenes in our lives as proof that there is no God - just that the God of Christians (and Muslims, and Jews) does not exist.

 

[mgoforth]

I think answering prayers in a manner that could be predictable and consistent to the extent that prayer would be confidently part of the medical toolbox would be a start, or at least give me pause for thought.

So that would make God a “medical tool”? It seems a bit condescending for us to ask our Creator to jump through hoops like that. And who’s to say that He doesn’t answer prayers consistently? Perhaps “consistency” to a Being who’s outside of all time and space - who sees the interconnection of all people and events - wouldn’t be recognizable as such from our point of view. What if God knew that the medical miracle we were praying for was not in the best interest of thousands of other people?

If you’re saying God should prove himself to us, I say that He does, but only to those who already believe in Him. Sounds silly from “outside” the Faith, I know, but it makes perfect sense from “inside”. What you might call a contradiction, I call a beautiful mystery.

 

[mgoforth]

With reference to the OP, is the argument about heaven very common among atheists? I am not sure I have come across it in that context. I have heard it discussed between theists, wondering about the nature (eternal or not) or free will, and about the relationship of God and those in heaven. Can anyone cite some atheist references on this?

Also I agree with the point already made that atheists do not use the existence of phenomena that could not result from the actions of an all-powerful and all-loving God who intervenes in our lives as proof that there is no God - just that the God of Christians (and Muslims, and Jews) does not exist.

I don’t know how common the argument is, but I have heard it before as an argument against God’s existence.

To the second point, since as a Christian I believe that THE God is the only one that makes sense it’s hard for me to consider “lesser” possibilities, such as a god who’s not all-powerful or not all-loving. I would always end up saying that a god like that is illogical. For me, it’s either the Christian God or none at all…and I know that none at all is just as illogical.

 

[Hokomai]

So that would make God a “medical tool”? It seems a bit condescending for us to ask our Creator to jump through hoops like that. And who’s to say that He doesn’t answer prayers consistently? Perhaps “consistency” to a Being who’s outside of all time and space - who sees the interconnection of all people and events - wouldn’t be recognizable as such from our point of view. What if God knew that the medical miracle we were praying for was not in the best interest of thousands of other people?

If you’re saying God should prove himself to us, I say that He does, but only to those who already believe in Him. Sounds silly from “outside” the Faith, I know, but it makes perfect sense from “inside”. What you might call a contradiction, I call a beautiful mystery.

The claim that prayer works when applied to sick people is a scientific claim. It predicts an outcome. Your point that prayer is not always answered does not alter this, as the claim is that, on average, over time, if we pray for sick people they will recover better, or suffer less. If not, why pray? And it is clear merely from reading CAF that this is exactly what many CAFers believe. It is a proposition that matter (peoples’ bodies) can be and is changed by something that is not material (prayer and God). This can be tested. those have tried have not produced any positive replicable results. when you say it "Sounds silly from “outside” the Faith, I know, but it makes perfect sense from “inside”, you should consider first the possibility of whether it sounds silly from outside because it is silly.

 

[atheistgirl]

So that would make God a “medical tool”? It seems a bit condescending for us to ask our Creator to jump through hoops like that.

No, I wouldn’t see that as being reduced to a mere ‘‘medical tool’’, rather, as demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt, for the unbeliever at least, that the claim that you can ‘‘ask in My Name, and it will be granted’’ holds consistently.

As for the jumping through hoops, well, again no, because Jesus did say whatever you ask in His name, will be given.

Now, I understand that there could be qualifiers implied in that, in the sense that given the overall context of Jesus’ message, asking for your neighbor to be struck down because he borrowed your mower and didn’t return it would be ignored.

But how about good Catholic families like that of Madeleine McCann, who’ve had the whole world, including the Pope praying for the safe return of their daughter, who have Mass offered every day, and who, 5 years later, are still in anguish for their missing little girl.

I can’t for the life of me see what lessons are being taught, or learned, from this families suffering and pain.

Sarah x

 

[Equites_Christi]

Aha! I see it very clearly now.

Our differences spring from the definitions of “love” and “mercy”, especially how they relate to suffering.

ASimon, atheistgirl, care to take a stab?

 

[Hokomai]

Aha! I see it very clearly now.

Our differences spring from the definitions of “love” and “mercy”, especially how they relate to suffering.

ASimon, atheistgirl, care to take a stab?

I will have a go. "Love’ means wishing for, and acting for, the good of other living things. If there is an all-powerful God, he does not do this, since animals, incapable of sin and without free will, have been suffering severe pain and distress for hundreds of millions of years. this includes time before there were eople, and therefore before the sin committed by the adam and Eve the church teaches were historical, real people. Therefore if there is an all-powerful God, he does not love all other living things.

 

[Equites_Christi]

I will have a go. "Love’ means wishing for, and acting for, the good of other living things. If there is an all-powerful God, he does not do this, since animals, incapable of sin and without free will, have been suffering severe pain and distress for hundreds of millions of years. this includes time before there were eople, and therefore before the sin committed by the adam and Eve the church teaches were historical, real people. Therefore if there is an all-powerful God, he does not love all other living things.

Noted. Other submissions from the atheist court?

 

[ASimon]

Noted. Other submissions from the atheist court?

I second Hokomai’s statement. My snarky definition of Love and Mercy would be - “The exact same definition that everyone else uses in every other context except this one.”

 

[Hokomai]

Noted. Other submissions from the atheist court?

I don’t think we have a ‘court’. It is more a loose anarchist collective, but not so organized as that.

 

[Equites_Christi]

Alrighty then

I will have a go. "Love’ means wishing for, and acting for, the good of other living things.

Land ho! We’ve found common ground.

If there is an all-powerful God, he does not do this, since animals, incapable of sin and without free will, have been suffering severe pain and distress for hundreds of millions of years.

To wit, you posit that love does not allow severe pain and distress in living beings, correct?