When monotheists hurt God's credibility

[Tenofovir]

Only in your eyes.

Was a great song from an old James Bond film. These are valid arguments and they’ve never been refuted. All attempted refutations have been neutralised. Your hand waving won’t work. Learn the arguments and then come back to argue.

It is LIMITED freedom. Can you help or hurt someone by thinking about it? You cannot, you must ACT. As such your freedom is ALWAYS limited. What is the problem of having different limits for different people? Criminals are incarcareted to LIMIT their freedom. Do you have problem with that?

Freedom is freedom. It has to be complete or it’s not freedom. A man in jail or a man sedated with Haloperidol/Tegretol is not free, although he can still make some choices.

Who cares? The deed is done, and even God has no “UNDO” command.

Well you may not care, but the fact is that there is evidence for it.

Nonsense. Where do you get these ideas?

It’s the logical truth. There is an insurmountable OUGHT/IS problem in atheistic worldviews which reject natural law. There is no evil in your worldview. Life is meaningless and unguided. No higher purpose. Just chemical reactions going on.
Even consciousness is said to be an illusion.

 

[Trurl]

Was a great song from an old James Bond film.

The film was “For your eyes only”. If you wish to argue, at least try to argue precisely.

These are valid arguments and they’ve never been refuted. All attempted refutations have been neutralised. Your hand waving won’t work. Learn the arguments and then come back to argue.

A refutation needs to be understood.

Freedom is freedom. It has to be complete or it’s not freedom. A man in jail or a man sedated with Haloperidol/Tegretol is not free, although he can still make some choices.

Sure… there is no ABSOLUTE freedom. Not even God can create a married bachelor. You try to dance around the question that it is a good (even GREAT) idea to limit the freedom of some people while allowing others to have more freedom. That is the question here, which NO ONE is willing to answer.

It’s the logical truth. There is an insurmountable OUGHT/IS problem in atheistic worldviews which reject natural law. There is no evil in your worldview. Life is meaningless and unguided. No higher purpose. Just chemical reactions going on.
Even consciousness is said to be an illusion.

Since you have no idea what the atheistic worldview is, you are hardly in the position to make judgments about it.

 

[Tenofovir]

About limited freedom too: we are all sinners. You mentioned some extreme examples, rape, torture etc., but these are not the only sins (or evils). Jealousy, telling lies, sexual perversion etc., are also evil acts. God would then have to sedate everyone on earth and we wouldn’t be free at all, or no-one would have carte blanche to choose what he or she thought was most important to them (God or the world) and lived accordingly.

 

[ReapReason]

I repeat, I do not reject God, I reject the whole christian theology!

Whether or not you reject Christian theology is irrelevant.

You cannot judge God as immoral based on your own objectively meaningless standard of morality or whatever happens to float your boat. Your subjective sense of right and wrong only reflects your personal pragmatic tastes and the tastes of whoever happens to agree with you. Just because some aspect of Christian theology does not sit well with you, does not in anyway determine whether Gods actions are truly contradictory with an objective universal standard of good. It only determines that God acts in a way that doesn’t reflect your own subjective desires.

Before you even ask if the existence of evil is contradictory with the existence of an objectively good God, you must first ask what is meant by an objective universal standard of Good and what it means to say that God is good. Only then can you analyse whether or not Christian theology is logical.

One of your repeating fallacies is that every-time somebody points out an aspect of Gods nature that is in fact morally consistent with the existence of evil, you say something to the effect of “well I don’t believe in the existence of that nature!!”

That might seem reasonable to you, but you have in no way refuted the Christian God; all you have done is erect a straw-man of morality and God, and argued against that alone.

I give you 5 stars for defeating a God that Christians don’t believe in.

 

[markeverett49]

Thank you.

Now the task is to show that ALL the seemingly unnecessary and gratuitous sufferings are just a “measurement error”, and when you do that, you established that God is indeed “good an benevolent”. .

I don’t feel any compulsion in this regard. I see nothing incompatible in the claims “God exists (and God is good)” and “pain and suffering occur in the world.” The assumption of the problem of evil is that God is not the CAUSE of evil. (The presumption is that evil exists but God does not, so God CANNOT be the cause of suffering.) It would be different if one argued that ONLY God exists AND there is evil in Him. But you are arguing that God COULD NOT exist (and be good) while evil (-or pain and suffering) takes place. But I don’t think you’ve established that the two are incompatible at all.In effect, you are arguing that God is not responsible for the pain and suffering in the world and BECAUSE he is not responsible, He doesn’t exist! I don’t find that at all convincing.

 

[Trurl]

About limited freedom too: we are all sinners. You mentioned some extreme examples, rape, torture etc., but these are not the only sins (or evils). Jealousy, telling lies, sexual perversion etc., are also evil acts. God would then have to sedate everyone on earth and we wouldn’t be free at all, or no-one would have carte blanche to choose what he or she thought was most important to them (God or the world) and lived accordingly.

I am only interested in those “sins” which cause pain and suffering to others. God can leave alone all those miserable “masturbators”, “homosexuals”, “sexual perverts” and other assorted abominations alone, so they can perform their own kinds of “evil acts”, and fill up the hell to the brim, so that their screams of agony would serve as a wonderful counter-point to the praises of those few handfuls of believers who happened to ask for forgiveness with their last breath. I could not care less. There will be a lot of those. Just take away the “freedom” of the rapists and torturers. Is that so much to ask for? The difference for the rest of use would in immeasurable.

 

[Tenofovir]

The film was “For your eyes only”. If you wish to argue, at least try to argue precisely.

Well you won one point with me.

Sure… there is no ABSOLUTE freedom. Not even God can create a married bachelor. You try to dance around the question that it is a good (even GREAT) idea to limit the freedom of some people while allowing others to have more freedom. That is the question here, which NO ONE is willing to answer.

That’s not absolute freedom. That’s making something logically impossible. No God, can’t create a rock so heavy He could not lift it. As I’ve added later, many acts are evil, and as evil is privation of GOOD, we would all need to be “brainwashed” by God. God however chooses to create us free to choose Him or the world. It’s pretty simple. To be moral agents we need to be able to choose the good from the bad.

Since you have no idea what the atheistic worldview is, you are hardly in the position to make judgments about it.

What don’t I understand?

One can assume that “evil” is to hurt someone who feels pain, but there is no axiomatic reason to do so. I can just as well assume that “evil” is to wear poorly co-ordinated clothes. But what is pain anyway. It’s a brain state. Why is one brain state objectively better than an other - well that’s a value statement. You could say people free of pain flourish, but I will reply and ask why should people flourish? We’re just accidents in your worldview. Anyway this problem is insurmountable and only overcome if one is clever in hiding his assumptions.

 

[Tenofovir]

I am only interested in those “sins” which cause pain and suffering to others. God can leave alone all those miserable “masturbators”, “homosexuals”, “sexual perverts” and other assorted abominations alone, so they can perform their own kinds of “evil acts”, and fill up the hell to the brim, so that their screams of agony would serve as a wonderful counter-point to the praises of those few handfuls of believers who happened to ask for forgiveness with their last breath. I could not care less. There will be a lot of those. Just take away the “freedom” of the rapists and torturers. Is that so much to ask for? The difference for the rest of use would in immeasurable.

Being homosexual is not evil. Having sex outside of marriage is. So no, just being attracted sexually to other guys is OK.

Evil acts hurt the person who performs them and they distance us from God who is Goodness Itself. Therefore we should not succumb to them.

Like it or not, that’s who God is in Catholicism. If you want to argue here, you must accept that and not argue against straw men. Do you accept to do this or not? If you don’t I see no point for your arguments here, as we will all be wasting time.

 

[markeverett49]

So according to the available evidence God is uncaring (or downright evil)…

This is a mistake because it assumes the God is a moral agent. Rather than insist that he is not, I think I will ask, “What is your evidence that God is a moral agent?” (By this I mean, a person who has responsibilities vis a vis a moral law.) Now, I don’t mean ‘what is your evidence that he is MORAL?’ because you might just say you don’t think he is moral at all, but I am asking what is your evidence that God is a moral AGENT, someone bound by moral law and who can be judged by his successes and failures in following it.

I do not think God is a moral agent, period.

 

[504Katrin]

I am only interested in those “sins” which cause pain and suffering to others. God can leave alone all those miserable “masturbators”, “homosexuals”, “sexual perverts” and other assorted abominations alone, so they can perform their own kinds of “evil acts”, and fill up the hell to the brim, so that their screams of agony would serve as a wonderful counter-point to the praises of those few handfuls of believers who happened to ask for forgiveness with their last breath. I could not care less. There will be a lot of those. Just take away the “freedom” of the rapists and torturers. Is that so much to ask for? The difference for the rest of use would in immeasurable.

How is this Gods’ job? It’s ours’. This is actually what we’re here for. It’s our purpose. You aren’t here on earth to put your hands in your pocket and rely on your faith and God, but to do your part to make this world a better place. If we loved eacch other and took responsiblity horrible things like the ones that you mentioned wouldn’t have happened. And “the difference for the rest of us” might indeed be “immeasurable”.
And also, there’re things that we cannot understand, we just can’t. An infinite being cannot understand the Infinite. We simply don’t have the tools to understand God. So to answer your question, yes, it is “too much to ask for”!

 

[Portofino]

I am only interested in those “sins” which cause pain and suffering to others. God can leave alone all those miserable “masturbators”, “homosexuals”, “sexual perverts” and other assorted abominations alone, so they can perform their own kinds of “evil acts”, and fill up the hell to the brim, so that their screams of agony would serve as a wonderful counter-point to the praises of those few handfuls of believers who happened to ask for forgiveness with their last breath. I could not care less. There will be a lot of those. Just take away the “freedom” of the rapists and torturers. Is that so much to ask for? The difference for the rest of use would in immeasurable.

:tiphat: A basic humanistic ethic is my only sense of morality, as well. What’s more, it is the only basis of morality in a free society.

One thing I like about the United States is that the burden of proof is on those who would deprive others of a particular right; they must prove that the exercise of this right is gravely harmful to others who are living in that society. Because such harm is difficult to demonstrate, it usually means physical harm; but there are cases (rape, pedophilia) of more purely emotional or psychological harm, as well (including “pain and suffering” and “mental anguish”).

Bad manners are a form of harm, but not severe enough to warrant legal intervention. Imprisoning someone and torturing them, of course, is grave enough to warrant intervention.

This basic humanistic standard is one reason why church and state must be separate; namely, because there are tenets of any religion’s moral code that do pass muster in terms of demonstrating that they flow from this rule of “do no harm.” For example, abstaining from pork fails the test. Sunday church attendance fails the test ; the Christian may believe that non-attendance is harmful – supremely harmful – but he cannot prove it to the satisfaction of non-Christians.

Opposition to gay marriage faces a similar uphill battle of proving that the sexual behavior of two consenting adults either infringes on the rights of others, or is a cause of grave physical or psychological harm to others (i.e., outside third parties). So far, all arguments of grave harm have been psychologically-based (“bad for society”; “bad for children”); others have side-stepped the standard of non-harm altogether, and invoked the will of God (which is a *non sequitur *in a society where church and state are separate). And, so far, arguments on the basis of “grave psychological harm” have failed to convince the majority of people.

Finally, this is the reason why laws discriminating against women do not pass muster in our civil society (even as they are enforced in religious circles) – they fail the test of demonstrating why the full participation of women in public life is a cause of grave harm to others.

 

[markeverett49]

:

One thing I like about the United States is that the burden of proof is on those who would deprive others of a particular right; they must prove that the exercise of this right is gravely harmful to others who are living in that society. .

You are assuming that there is universal agreement about what rights there are and who has them. We have recently heard many people claim that a) ‘free speech’ is a universal right (-though it is not in the Constitution of all nations) but b) no one may insult Islam, period, and anyone who does, wherever they may be when they do it, is subject to laws of lands who regard such speech as a crime.

On a comic front, I read a novel years ago that featured a young woman from Hunter College who was part of “The Non-Violent Congress for the Sexually Needy,” and she argued that the government should provide sex partners for people who wanted sex partners but couldn’t find any. Granted, that is from a comic novel. But it makes the point that just because someone claims a right, it doesn’t follow that their claim is a good one. (I suspect I’ll live long enough to see serious advocacy for something like a ‘non-violent congress for the sexually needy.’)

 

[Portofino]

You are assuming that there is universal agreement about what rights there are and who has them. We have recently heard many people claim that a) ‘free speech’ is a universal right (-though it is not in the Constitution of all nations) but b) no one may insult Islam, period, and anyone who does, wherever they may be when they do it, is subject to laws of lands who regard such speech as a crime.

On a comic front, I read a novel years ago that featured a young woman from Hunter College who was part of “The Non-Violent Congress for the Sexually Needy,” and she argued that the government should provide sex partners for people who wanted sex partners but couldn’t find any. Granted, that is from a comic novel. But it makes the point that just because someone claims a right, it doesn’t follow that their claim is a good one. (I suspect I’ll live long enough to see serious advocacy for something like a ‘non-violent congress for the sexually needy.’)

I agree with you; I don’t deny that there are social and political debates, often bitterly contested, in which opposing sides argue their case. The term “culture wars” is an apt one.

Regarding free speech, I see that same debate at work over what does or doesn’t constitute harm. If I am advocating violence – up to and including very specific instructions as to what form the violence is to take – there is more or less consensus that I am infringing upon the rights of others. Few would defend an op-ed columnist who said, “kill any ___ person you see; target the children first. We start on Sunday at 9 am.”

There is more of a gray area regarding free speech that offends religious or moral sensibilities. Parodies of religion – e.g., Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”–offended religious sensibilities and incited protests, as well as a few death threats. Nonetheless, no formal ban of free speech is generally enforced, when it comes merely to offending the sensibilities of others (unless one can demonstrate that it was a “hate crime” of sorts).

But how about when doing so incites *actual *violence? Because of that filmmaker who did “The Innocence of Mohammed”, there are a number of people who are no longer alive. That is pain and suffering for their friends and family, as well; and it is the destruction of untold millions in private proverty.

There’s no easy answer, but the tension I see is still between that of individual freedom and not violating – or inciting to a violation of – the rights of others.

 

[meltzerboy]

You are assuming that there is universal agreement about what rights there are and who has them. We have recently heard many people claim that a) ‘free speech’ is a universal right (-though it is not in the Constitution of all nations) but b) no one may insult Islam, period, and anyone who does, wherever they may be when they do it, is subject to laws of lands who regard such speech as a crime.

On a comic front, I read a novel years ago that featured a young woman from Hunter College who was part of “The Non-Violent Congress for the Sexually Needy,” and she argued that the government should provide sex partners for people who wanted sex partners but couldn’t find any. Granted, that is from a comic novel. But it makes the point that just because someone claims a right, it doesn’t follow that their claim is a good one. (I suspect I’ll live long enough to see serious advocacy for something like a ‘non-violent congress for the sexually needy.’)

Well, what do you expect? The young woman is from Hunter College of the City University of New York!

 

[meltzerboy]

:tiphat: A basic humanistic ethic is my only sense of morality, as well. What’s more, it is the only basis of morality in a free society.

One thing I like about the United States is that the burden of proof is on those who would deprive others of a particular right; they must prove that the exercise of this right is gravely harmful to others who are living in that society. Because such harm is difficult to demonstrate, it usually means physical harm; but there are cases (rape, pedophilia) of more purely emotional or psychological harm, as well (including “pain and suffering” and “mental anguish”).

Bad manners are a form of harm, but not severe enough to warrant legal intervention. Imprisoning someone and torturing them, of course, is grave enough to warrant intervention.

This basic humanistic standard is one reason why church and state must be separate; namely, because there are tenets of any religion’s moral code that do pass muster in terms of demonstrating that they flow from this rule of “do no harm.” For example, abstaining from pork fails the test. Sunday church attendance fails the test ; the Christian may believe that non-attendance is harmful – supremely harmful – but he cannot prove it to the satisfaction of non-Christians.

Opposition to gay marriage faces a similar uphill battle of proving that the sexual behavior of two consenting adults either infringes on the rights of others, or is a cause of grave physical or psychological harm to others (i.e., outside third parties). So far, all arguments of grave harm have been psychologically-based (“bad for society”; “bad for children”); others have side-stepped the standard of non-harm altogether, and invoked the will of God (which is a *non sequitur *in a society where church and state are separate). And, so far, arguments on the basis of “grave psychological harm” have failed to convince the majority of people.

Finally, this is the reason why laws discriminating against women do not pass muster in our civil society (even as they are enforced in religious circles) – they fail the test of demonstrating why the full participation of women in public life is a cause of grave harm to others.

This makes sense to me, except I believe people with bad manners should be imprisoned!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, no. Atheists do not posit a good God, so the persistence of evil is not a problem for them. (They might have a problem explaining good deeds that bring no evolutionary advantage to the doer—such as sacrificing your life to save a stranger—but that’s another box of rocks.)

They have an endless supply of hoops.

 

[markeverett49]

But how about when doing so incites *actual *violence? Because of that filmmaker who did “The Innocence of Mohammed”, there are a number of people who are no longer alive. That is pain and suffering for their friends and family, as well; and it is the destruction of untold millions in private proverty.

There’s no easy answer, but the tension I see is still between that of individual freedom and not violating – or inciting to a violation of – the rights of others.

Well, you’re asserting that people have a right NOT to be offended in their religious beliefs (-provided they’re willing to use violent to express their displeasure) and I don’t grant that. I think the Mass Transit Authority (MTA) made a mistake in New York by changing the law about posters that can be placed in the subway. The new rule seems to be it’s okay to deface any property you find offensive (–I think this is a terrible rule). I think there’s a cowardice here, a sense that “we can’t allow people who might get violent to be upset.” Well, people on the edge violence are ALREADY upset! I don’t think Muslims have a singular right to never have their faith criticized (-this includes criticism from WITHIN the faith too.) I think this approach makes a mockery of free speech AND human rights because it boils down to “do whatever it takes to quieten the squeaky wheel and never mind the rights of the quiet wheels–they won’t make a fuss.”

 

[Trurl]

Being homosexual is not evil. Having sex outside of marriage is. So no, just being attracted sexually to other guys is OK.

Please, you know exactly what I was talking about. I left out the word “practicing” homosexuals, because it was obvious. The point is that there would be plenty of “hell-fodders” left even if God would “weed out” the child-molesters, rapists and other such people.

Evil acts hurt the person who performs them and they distance us from God who is Goodness Itself. Therefore we should not succumb to them.

Except the word “evil” is used in a nonsensical manner.

Like it or not, that’s who God is in Catholicism. If you want to argue here, you must accept that and not argue against straw men. Do you accept to do this or not? If you don’t I see no point for your arguments here, as we will all be wasting time.

We are wasting time, because such elementary concepts like “love”, “goodness” and “evil” are assingned some arbitrary meaning, which has nothing to do with their actual meaning.

 

[Tenofovir]

Please, you know exactly what I was talking about. I left out the word “practicing” homosexuals, because it was obvious. The point is that there would be plenty of “hell-fodders” left even if God would “weed out” the child-molesters, rapists and other such people.

Sex outside of marriage which is not aimed at procreation is immoral. There is a reason for that. It does not go with natural law. Just because you don’t like that, it’s no argument against it. Sex with animals, children, same sex people and people who are not married is immoral because it is not directed towards its natural (GOOD) end.

Being attracted (sexually) to other men is itself not evil. It’s acting out on it which is sinful. Gay people don’t sin if they don’t engage in sexual relations with other men.

Except the word “evil” is used in a nonsensical manner.

Says you. It’s used in a coherent manner.

We are wasting time, because such elementary concepts like “love”, “goodness” and “evil” are assingned some arbitrary meaning, which has nothing to do with their actual meaning.

No. In a universe maintained by God such meanings have independent value. In a Godless universe, they have none, I agree and only refer to certain brain states which mean nothing. Just because you have a different level of serotonin or noradrenalin in your limbic system is irrelevant - it only implies you are happy or not. It’s as meaningful as water which is frozen or water which boils.

We’re wasting time because you want to argue against a straw man. The Catholic God also the God of the Jews and Muslims is Being Itself. (It’s the concept in the 3 Abrahamaic Religions). He is the ground of all existence. He is Goodness itself not He is Good. He is Truth, not He speaks truth. He is uncreated. This is all well argued out from empirical premises. If you want to know more, I suggest you purchase a good book: The Last Superstition, by Prof E Feser. There are of course other books.

Some people, many Protestants, have a Theistic Personalist view of God. God is a person, someone who is analogous to a person who could be said to be Good or Bad. Platinga and Craig are two such people. The POE has some traction against such a concept of God, but this is not the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Jewish or Muslim concept of God (as understood by the intellectuals and clergy). Common people often have personalist views of God, but you have to argue about what the correct concept is.

 

[Tenofovir]

The idea that God should weed out child molesters and rapists is silly. Why should God then not weed out people who commit just as deadly but more subtle injustices, such as unfair bosses who fire people or abuse them, bullies who lead people to depression, fraudsters who defraud people of their life savings, elder abusers who hit and punch the elderly they are looking after, alcoholics who beat their wives and destroy their families, etc. God would have to interfere everywhere. And if He did that, they why not just go all the way and interfere with anyone who has a bad though. Why stop at certain injustices? Surely God is perfectly good and powerful, He can do anything, ne? Surely?

Obviously not, God can’t just micromanage us this way. We’d have absolutely NO FREE WILL. Even if He just zaps people who rape and kill, we would not be free then.