The Problem of Evil

[Awkward Fingers]

And yet it was an atheist who made the claim. Its an atheist who called the demand for proof to support the stated clam uncivil rather than a logical requirement.

Its an atheist who came up with the irrational BS of agnostic atheism. Really, Christians didn't make up this nonsense and force you atheists to accept it just so we could embarrass you when we subsequently annihilate it.

Its an atheist who is launching into a personal smear to hypocritically call someone a hypocrite. From a single sentence and avoiding of all else.

Your atheism is subject to study, examination, and criticism. That there is a lot to criticize? Well, seems like you should have studied up more assiduously before becoming an atheist then.

That fact that atheism, particularly modern, militant atheism, has so many flaws isn't to be avoided because its adherents think all criticism of the IDEA is a personal attack.

That is called an appeal to spite. Its fallacious.

It would be ONE MORE valid criticism of modern atheism's narrative.

Criticism remains valid, even when you cry about it.

And again, atheists need not behave in this emotionalized victimhood mentality. Indeed, most do not. Why atheists tolerate this kind of behavior? Allow it to define their faith rather than reject charlatans the way Christians disavow the Westboro Baptist church is ... not really comprehensible to me.

And you still haven't given your evidence for an obvious god. It's you who made a claim, then demanded proof you were wrong.
Yes I called you a hypocrite, where as you've called me a brain dead nihilist moron, and it's my behavior that shouldn't be tolerated, gotcha.

My atheism is absolutely open to study and criticism. Which you haven't done, because you constantly mislabel my atheism, and make false remarks about what I do or don't think, while completely ignoring the list of things I do believe about my atheism.

And you crying about other people making personal attacks is laughable.. That has been all I see from you.

emotionalized victimhood mentality? I honestly have no idea where you're even going with this...
You've mislabeled what I think, ignored what I told you I do think, insisted I read every apologetic out there, without ever putting forward an argument of your own, and still screaming about others lack of proof while not putting forward your own proof of your claim yet.

Honestly, at this point, I think you're just here to vent and yell, or maybe destress from some issue that's bothering you, because the things you're railing on about me and what I do, don't even apply to me.

So, for the sake of brevity, I'll ask again.
What is your proof of an obvious god.
Not some other authors, not everyone you've ever spoken to.
Yours.

*Off to head to work now, will check back later*

 

[gree0232]

Yeah, but you hardcore atheists never seem to do much good with it. You should probably practice.

Oh yeah, we have long noted the specatular ability of atheists to fundamentally misunderstand religion for a long time.

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster."

Terry Eagleton reviews

Oh yes, he ability of atheists to fundamentally misunderstand even basic religious concepts has long been leveled as a criticism of atheism.

In the upside down world of a ... well single ... atheist, this is actually good?

Well, by all means atheist, support that claim ... as logic demands.

Having to criticize religion based on straw men that are inaccurate and fallacious is actually good because ... **** if I know? I'd love to see your reasoning?

Again, if we accept the basic rules of logic, that claims must be supported, that should preclude us from making wildly unsupportable claims. It should at any rate.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

BTW - the claim of agnostic atheism is that it rejects the claim of Christianity. That implies that you have familiarized yourself with the subject matter and supporting material. The idea that I have to explain the basic concepts AFTER you arrived at the conclusion is a statement that requires time travel in order for your claim to have merit.

You rejected Christianity BEFORE you ever met me.

That is the claim.

Apologetics has been around for thousands of years.

Thus these claims should have been examined, and you are free to provide the list of works you did reject, and explain why you rejected them.

If you cannot?

Well, that means you rejected something for no reason at all. And that is basely illogical isn't it.

Time travel ... we reject Christianity because of time travel and you have to tell us why YOU believe so we can use absurdity to reject it anyway. Classic argument from ignorance.

The claim of agnostic atheism is that it rejects all god claims, not just christianitys.

So practice what you preach.
You accept christianity, therefore you reject ALL gods that came before you decided to accept Christianity.
Show me you're willing to do what you asked me to do, then.
That is the military way, isn't it? Never ask someone else what to do what you wouldn't? I believe that's honor.

So, Show me, in detail, why you reject every god that was thought of, before you chose to accept christianity, or acknowledge what a silly argument that is.
Then again, you never said what branch you were, so maybe honor isn't your thing.

 

[gree0232]

And you still haven't given your evidence for an obvious god. It's you who made a claim, then demanded proof you were wrong.
Yes I called you a hypocrite, where as you've called me a brain dead nihilist moron, and it's my behavior that shouldn't be tolerated, gotcha.

My atheism is absolutely open to study and criticism. Which you haven't done, because you constantly mislabel my atheism, and make false remarks about what I do or don't think, while completely ignoring the list of things I do believe about my atheism.

And you crying about other people making personal attacks is laughable.. That has been all I see from you.

emotionalized victimhood mentality? I honestly have no idea where you're even going with this...
You've mislabeled what I think, ignored what I told you I do think, insisted I read every apologetic out there, without ever putting forward an argument of your own, and still screaming about others lack of proof while not putting forward your own proof of your claim yet.

Honestly, at this point, I think you're just here to vent and yell, or maybe destress from some issue that's bothering you, because the things you're railing on about me and what I do, don't even apply to me.

So, for the sake of brevity, I'll ask again.
What is your proof of an obvious god.
Not some other authors, not everyone you've ever spoken to.
Yours.

*Off to head to work now, will check back later*

Once again.

Time travel.

I don't have to provide you with the evidence that you have ALREADY rejected.

Your very claim implies you already have it and have already rejected it.

As I said, agnostic atheism is about avoiding the burden of proof that atheists sign themselves up for.

I cannot travel through time and explain what lead to to reject something. Neither can I read your mind. YOU have to explain what you looked at and why you found it to be invalid.

That IS THE CLAIM you signed up for.

Now for the sake of brevity, I will remind you that I can neither travel through time nor read your mind. I have to explain nothing about the faith you have already rejected ... ostensibly for a logical reason.

I am getting the distinct impression that there is nothing logical in the rejection at all.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Oh yeah, we have long noted the specatular ability of atheists to fundamentally misunderstand religion for a long time.

I don't get it. If you know that atheists have this problem, why don't you convert from atheism to some kind of theistic belief?

It can create internal turmoil, you know, when your beliefs don't match up with your label.

 

[gree0232]

The claim of agnostic atheism is that it rejects all god claims, not just christianitys.

So practice what you preach.
You accept christianity, therefore you reject ALL gods that came before you decided to accept Christianity.
Show me you're willing to do what you asked me to do, then.
That is the military way, isn't it? Never ask someone else what to do what you wouldn't? I believe that's honor.

So, Show me, in detail, why you reject every god that was thought of, before you chose to accept christianity, or acknowledge what a silly argument that is.
Then again, you never said what branch you were, so maybe honor isn't your thing.

No, its the claim that its not making any claim at all.

But, if you reject ALL religions, ostensibly for a rational reason, then you have ostensibly studied them all, and should be able o explain in detail, enough that adherents to each faith can see the trail of logic, to explain why the rejection makes sense.

That is a rather massive burden your claim signed up for. And you have no one to blame but yourself.

Its far easier to simple be logical and support the claims that atheists clearly are making: That there either is no God or God is improbable.

That God is not real or improbable is because ....

Well, we'd rather claim we aren't making and claim at all instead.

That travesty of logic is what it is.

No one forced atheists to sign up for it.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

But aren't you saying it is your God that put these physical laws in place? And if he is the omnipotent creator then these physical laws could have been otherwise. But I have to admit that if God is a utilitarian deity as you suggest, rather than a moral being, then there is certainly no contradiction; for what we have in general experience is entirely consistent with that view.

If you have a better alternative to the laws regarding energy that govern the universe please put them forth. I am sure God is open to suggestions.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No, its the claim that its not making any claim at all.

But, if you reject ALL religions, ostensibly for a rational reason, then you have ostensibly studied them all, and should be able o explain in detail, enough that adherents to each faith can see the trail of logic, to explain why the rejection makes sense.

That is a rather massive burden your claim signed up for. And you have no one to blame but yourself.

Its far easier to simple be logical and support the claims that atheists clearly are making: That there either is no God or God is improbable.

That God is not real or improbable is because ....

Well, we'd rather claim we aren't making and claim at all instead.

That travesty of logic is what it is.

No one forced atheists to sign up for it.

Sounds like their answer is simply..."Just because..."

 

[Koldo]

That god gives preference to reality, yes.

Just a minor change: God gives preference to what he actualized.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

No, its the claim that its not making any claim at all.

But, if you reject ALL religions, ostensibly for a rational reason, then you have ostensibly studied them all, and should be able o explain in detail, enough that adherents to each faith can see the trail of logic, to explain why the rejection makes sense.

That is a rather massive burden your claim signed up for. And you have no one to blame but yourself.

Its far easier to simple be logical and support the claims that atheists clearly are making: That there either is no God or God is improbable.

That God is not real or improbable is because ....

Well, we'd rather claim we aren't making and claim at all instead.

That travesty of logic is what it is.

No one forced atheists to sign up for it.

I'm getting tired of these constant strawmen.
No, atheism is a response to a claim. It is simply "not theism"
No, rejecting all religions doesn't require rejecting every claim, it requires rejecting every claim I've been given.
Its a massive burden because you redefine things to knock down your strawmen.

I, at last, have already given you some reasons I'm am atheist, and you've now ignited them repeatedly, while crying out I have no reasons.
You have still failed to give your reasons, repeatedly.

You have also failed to do what you ask of me, which answers another question I had about you.

I absolutely agree there's a travesty of logic here.

Now, give your evidence of thus obvious good you keep saying you have, and either refute every god other than your own, our admit you're asking me to do something you wouldn't do yourself.

Really tired of your dodging and false claims.

Please do the above, like you asked me to do, or forgive me if I go back to the conversation in progress and end this one.
You are giving absolutely nothing meaningful.

 

[Koldo]

Oh no, I got the point.

Free will is no omnipotence.

I have free will NOT omnipotence.

That is kind of the point your are missing.

Really, the two concepts convey different meanings for a reason.

I completely understand that.

You have free will even though you don't have omnipotence. Yes. That is what i said.

Which is funny, because even though you are saying that you get it, you are speaking as if I was talking the opposite.

Again, are we looking to reject, or are we making a case that drives us to a conclusion?

Christians have long acknowledged that having free will doesn't grant us magical powers. Are you making some point here that is going to disprove God? Or, again, are you simply avoiding having to concede a point?

The conclusion is that since you lack the power to do certain things ( like flying ), and since you still have free will regardless of that, it is entirely possible for god to make it so you would no longer be able to murder anyone in a manner that you would still have free will.

Well, the sky has absolutely nothing to do with promiscuity does it? Are you again, simply avoiding the concession of a valid point?

That's an analogy, sir. To show how baffled I am by when you claim promiscuity is wrong, and asking me to prove that it is not.

You claimed that people should have prefect health, that changes in heath and diseases are wrong!! Evil gosh darn it.

Wrong? No. I didn't say that changes in health and diseases are inherently wrong.

The rebuttal is that we make choices that effect our health in positive or negative ways. That is as it should be.

Why? What leads you to this conclusion?
I want to read your reasoning behind that.

The choice to be an anonymous park whore is not the same choice as the decision to be a committed and loving spouse is it? Different choices bring DIFFERENT consequences don't they?

Different, yes. Must different entail 'bad' and 'good'?
Can't both be 'good' and different?

And they should.

Yet you don't want to concede that point? And we have to discuss the sky now?

Sir, that is an analogy. Read it again if you must.
It is not about discussing about the sky.

Again, are you making a case or merely being contrarian? After all the goal here is to attempt to convince OTHERS isn't it?

I have been defending the problem of evil for quite some time now.
But you have been misrepresenting or misunderstanding me in such an amazing manner.

STD's and the sky isn't terribly convincing as an argument. In fact, its kinda wonkish.

Once again, you miss the point. Completely. Totally. Utterly.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Sounds like their answer is simply..."Just because..."

Well, my personal reasons that I already gave in this thread were.. One moment while I cut n paste..

I was brought to my conclusion based off the lack of interaction of a god, lack of evidence of the presence of a god, and lack of any personal experience to the contrary.
I was brought to this decision based of talking to bible literalists, and disagreeing with them on some of the factual points they believed in.
I was brought to it by talking to more moderate believers, and their lack of being able to give an objective description of how to tell the "literal" parts of the bible from the "metaphoric," while they claimed some innate ability to do it, that was inconsistent with others that worshiped the same god, and all of them claiming to be correct, and able to tell exactly the message that god wanted to convey, while being both unable to explain how, or to even be consistent with each other, or in many cases, even consistent with themselves.
I was brought to it by being told claims I simply don't believe, and am unconvinced of, and a lack of evidence showing me that I am incorrect.


But if you are already so against me and my thoughts, that my personal feelings and thoughts are so disposable add to all be condensed into "just because" without even being given the respect of acknowledging them as you toss them out... Well good for you.

I really don't even know what to say.
Obviously, a discussion isn't what you're looking for. Or at least one where you actually listen to the person your talking to.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Really tired of your dodging and false claims.

This is nothing. In another thread I've been accused of making a vulgar joke. When I ask for a reference to the joke in question, I'm given none and the accusation is repeated again that I've told a vulgar joke in the thread somewhere.

Curious stuff.

 

[gree0232]

I completely understand that.

You have free will even though you don't have omnipotence. Yes. That is what i said.

Which is funny, because even though you are saying that you get it, you are speaking as if I was talking the opposite.



The conclusion is that since you lack the power to do certain things ( like flying ), and since you still have free will regardless of that, it is entirely possible for god to make it so you would no longer be able to murder anyone in a manner that you would still have free will.



That's an analogy, sir. To show how baffled I am by when you claim promiscuity is wrong, and asking me to prove that it is not.



Wrong? No. I didn't say that changes in health and diseases are inherently wrong.



Why? What leads you to this conclusion?
I want to read your reasoning behind that.



Different, yes. Must different entail 'bad' and 'good'?
Can't both be 'good' and different?



Sir, that is an analogy. Read it again if you must.
It is not about discussing about the sky.



I have been defending the problem of evil for quite some time now.
But you have been misrepresenting or misunderstanding me in such an amazing manner.



Once again, you miss the point. Completely. Totally. Utterly.

#1 - You asked me why I couldn't choose to fly (which technically I cam I just need to buy a airline ticket ... but I digress). Only now, you are curiously leaving that out.

#2 - When you write that diseases are bad, evil and all like ... and someone points out that they:

A. are often the result of poor health choices. Like eating carrots rather tha burger king.

B. Inspire us to learn about an conquer diseases ... like polio vaccinations.

Saying ... gosh I did not say that is, once again, about refusing to concede a point.

Your point is? Very clear not spelled out in a cogent or understandable manner.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

This is nothing. In another thread I've been accused of making a vulgar joke. When I ask for a reference to the joke in question, I'm given none and the accusation is repeated again that I've told a vulgar joke in the thread somewhere.

Curious stuff.

It must be some advanced debating skill that I am inept at, I'm fairly new to this sort of thing. Perhaps someday I'll be that good, but alas, today is not yet that day..

 

[gree0232]

Well, my personal reasons that I already gave in this thread were.. One moment while I cut n paste..

I was brought to my conclusion based off the lack of interaction of a god, lack of evidence of the presence of a god, and lack of any personal experience to the contrary.
I was brought to this decision based of talking to bible literalists, and disagreeing with them on some of the factual points they believed in.
I was brought to it by talking to more moderate believers, and their lack of being able to give an objective description of how to tell the "literal" parts of the bible from the "metaphoric," while they claimed some innate ability to do it, that was inconsistent with others that worshiped the same god, and all of them claiming to be correct, and able to tell exactly the message that god wanted to convey, while being both unable to explain how, or to even be consistent with each other, or in many cases, even consistent with themselves.
I was brought to it by being told claims I simply don't believe, and am unconvinced of, and a lack of evidence showing me that I am incorrect.


But if you are already so against me and my thoughts, that my personal feelings and thoughts are so disposable add to all be condensed into "just because" without even being given the respect of acknowledging them as you toss them out... Well good for you.

I really don't even know what to say.
Obviously, a discussion isn't what you're looking for. Or at least one where you actually listen to the person your talking to.

I am not interested in your personal views on religion.

I am interested in why agnostic atheism would even have the pretense of logic or rationality?

I have explained why it is not - repeatedly.

Why is it rational?

No offense, and I am sure your personal reasons for being atheist are quite compelling, they just aren't relevant to the logical basis of agnostic atheism ... or the lack thereof.

Agnostic atheism is an illogical framework. IMHO, extremely so. So much so that I have a difficult time seeing why anyone would ascribe to it. So much so that when I apply the rules and standards of logic to it ... it implodes.

Again, not sure what your personal views on atheism have to do with the logical basis of agnostic atheism ... which is an ideology that is ascribed to by more than you.

Claim: Agnostic atheism is logical.

Because: ... I haven't the foggiest, and neither apparently do agnostic atheists.

 

[Koldo]

#1 - You asked me why I couldn't choose to fly (which technically I cam I just need to buy a airline ticket ... but I digress). Only now, you are curiously leaving that out.

I NEVER asked you why you can't choose to fly.

#2 - When you write that diseases are bad, evil and all like ... and someone points out that they:

A. are often the result of poor health choices. Like eating carrots rather tha burger king.

B. Inspire us to learn about an conquer diseases ... like polio vaccinations.

Saying ... gosh I did not say that is, once again, about refusing to concede a point.

I NEVER said that diseases are evil.

I request that you quote me where I said both of those things.
If you can't, then I require you to at least properly apologize for completely misrepresenting what I have said.

Your point is? Very clear not spelled out in a cogent or understandable manner.

An omnimax god does not exist, because it entails a logic contradiction.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It must be some advanced debating skill that I am inept at, I'm fairly new to this sort of thing. Perhaps someday I'll be that good, but alas, today is not yet that day..

You'll get used to it, although I have to say this is some of the most bizarre that I've witnessed.

 

[Willamena]

The conclusion is that since you lack the power to do certain things ( like flying ), and since you still have free will regardless of that, it is entirely possible for god to make it so you would no longer be able to murder anyone in a manner that you would still have free will.

It's not a power that we lack, it's an impossibility.

 

[Koldo]

It's not a power that we lack, it's an impossibility.

Do you mean that we couldn't possibly have the power to do that?
I disagree. I bet you are not into x-men.