THERE Is no super being i will tell you why

[Kilgore Trout]

It's nice to know that the sun isn't going to supernova any time soon isn't it... and that we haven't yet been hit by a massive asteroid or that the supervolcano in Yellowstone is behaving nicely.... but you have a bad day and suddenly gods not doing it's job?

Excellent point. There have been numerous mass extinction events, natural disasters, and plagues/diseases which have eradicated various populations and caused untold suffering. God didn't stop these things before, and when they happen again "god" will do nothing to stop them, because a) god doesn't exist; b) can't do anything about it; or c) doesn't care about the suffering of life forms on this planet - including humans.

Whatever it is you think it's job should be... like babysitting you and keeping you in milk and honey...

You seem to be attached to this idea that I "blame" god for things. I simply do not believe god(s) exist, so the whole idea makes no sense. I accept full responsibility for my existence and live accordingly. I'm simply pointing out the logic that the idea of a god who "loves" us is ridiculous.

so the only logical conclusion about gods existance is ... agnostic... but the only logical follow up to that is to ignore half of what agnostic means?

Atheism is not the logical follow up to Agnosticism... that would be Agnosticism...

When did I say it was a "follow up?" The two are not mutually exclusive.

In regards to whether I know god(s) exist, the logical answer is "I don't know" - agnostic.

In regards to whether I believe god(s) exist, the logical answer is that "I don't, because there isn't sufficient evidence to hold said belief" - atheist.

 

[painted wolf]

Excellent point. There have been numerous mass extinction events, natural disasters, and plagues/diseases which have eradicated various populations and caused untold suffering. God didn't stop these things before, and when they happen again "god" will do nothing to stop them, because a) god doesn't exist; b) can't do anything about it; or c) doesn't care about the suffering of life forms on this planet - including humans.

C sounds pretty ok to me... that and everything has a end... what a boring universe otherwise.

You seem to be attached to this idea that I "blame" god for things. I simply do not believe god(s) exist, so the whole idea makes no sense. I accept full responsibility for my existence and live accordingly. I'm simply pointing out the logic that the idea of a god who "loves" us is ridiculous.

all I was pointing out was the idea that god doting on us was ridiculous... seems we agree.

When did I say it was a "follow up?" The two are not mutually exclusive.

they sort of are... Agnostics accept the possible existence of god... Atheists do not.
Logically you should 'believe' in the fact that you don't and can not know the truth about the existence or lack there of... of god.

There may be insufficient evidence to hold belief... but there is insufficient evidence to not hold any belief either.

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

they sort of are... Agnostics accept the possible existence of god... Atheists do not.

Depends on what type of atheist you are. Atheism in its broadest form is simply the absence of belief that god(s) exist. This is the type of atheist I am, as well as most atheists I know.

Logically you should 'believe' in the fact that you don't and can not know the truth about the existence or lack there of... of god.

Well, it's logical to say that you do not know whether god exists, but saying that we cannot know isn't strictly a logical proposition.

There may be insufficient evidence to hold belief... but there is insufficient evidence to not hold any belief either.

The insufficient evidence to hold belief that god(s) exist is the only condition necessary for atheism.

 

[Willamena]

...because a) god doesn't exist; b) can't do anything about it; or c) doesn't care about the suffering of life forms on this planet - including humans.

or d) isn't the image we hold of it.

 

[painted wolf]

Well, it's logical to say that you do not know whether god exists, but saying that we cannot know isn't strictly a logical proposition.

why not?

The insufficient evidence to hold belief that god(s) exist is the only condition necessary for atheism.

depends on the type of faith and why one chooses to participate... God isn't the only reason to participate in a faith.

wa:do

 

[Beaudreaux]

Really, in the grand scheme of things why should god care [if someone's daughter is sexually molested], perhaps it's not that big a deal to something as inhuman as a god?

There is a different word for a being that has the power to stop evil yet sits by idly while it occurs. The word is "demon", not "God".

 

[Riverwolf]

There is a different word for a being that has the power to stop evil yet sits by idly while it occurs. The word is "demon", not "God".

Then aren't we all demons?

I mean, how can we expect God to do something about children getting molested all the time if we sit around and do little to nothing about it?

 

[Enoch07]

There is a different word for a being that has the power to stop evil yet sits by idly while it occurs. The word is "demon", not "God".

A demon has the power to stop evil? That is a new one. Considering when their whole existence is to tempt you into evil deeds.

 

[painted wolf]

There is a different word for a being that has the power to stop evil yet sits by idly while it occurs. The word is "demon", not "God".

Who says there isn't a place for evil in the universe? Why insist that everything needs to be milk and honey?
It's a very immature view of the universe.

wa:do

 

[Riverwolf]

Who says there isn't a place for evil in the universe? Why insist that everything needs to be milk and honey?
It's a very immature view of the universe.

wa:do

Agreed. There is a reason God does not stop "evil" even though it has the power to do so, and us mortals CAN comprehend it. It just takes some thinking about.

All I will say on the reason is this: Without Death, Life cannot exist.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

why not?

There is no logical basis for saying that we cannot know. We simply don't know whether we can know god exists or not, so we cannot logically conclude that we cannot know.

depends on the type of faith and why one chooses to participate... God isn't the only reason to participate in a faith.

Sure, but regardless of whether you participate in a faith or not, if you do not believe that god(s) exist, then you are an atheist.

 

[painted wolf]

We simply don't know whether we can know god exists or not, so we cannot logically conclude that we cannot know.

then logically you can't conclude that you can know absolutely that one does not exist.

Sure, but regardless of whether you participate in a faith or not, if you do not believe that god(s) exist, then you are an atheist.

I find that most atheists are simply disbelievers in the god concepts they are aware of. Generally this is the big religions that get "press coverage"... god concepts like the one I hold are often so alien that they can't grasp that what I believe in is ... god/Creator.
Hence all the whinging about "why would god let bad things happen"....

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

then logically you can't conclude that you can know absolutely that one does not exist.

I haven't stated otherwise.

I find that most atheists are simply disbelievers in the god concepts they are aware of. Generally this is the big religions that get "press coverage"... god concepts like the one I hold are often so alien that they can't grasp that what I believe in is ... god/Creator.

I find that most atheists are, at root, rationalists who don't believe in anything which doesn't have sufficient evidence to warrant belief. Atheism is simply a natural result of this mindset.

I don't believe that god(s) exist for the same reason I don't believe in astrology, psychics, ghosts, or bigfoot - there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant such belief. Whatever any particular god concept is, is irrelevant to me, insofar as that god concept is associated with attributes for which no objective evidence exists.

I've known many atheists, and the vast majority have fallen into this category.

Hence all the whinging about "why would god let bad things happen"....

Some people do whine about this, but their atheism is always suspect to me. However, many atheists, including myself, will bring up this topic to argue against the concept of a benevolent god - not because we are whining about it, but because it is logically inconsistent.

 

[painted wolf]

I don't believe that god(s) exist for the same reason I don't believe in astrology, psychics, ghosts, or bigfoot - there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant such belief. Whatever any particular god concept is, is irrelevant to me, insofar as that god concept is associated with attributes for which no objective evidence exists.

I find god to be subjective rather than objective.

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I find god to be subjective rather than objective.

I agree with you there.

 

[Nepenthe]

See, I actually do some work today and painted wolf and atotalstranger run off with the thread.

then logically you can't conclude that you can know absolutely that one does not exist.

Yes, not the kind of god you propose, but an interventionist, omnimax deity is contradictory and can be absolutely dismissed as possible.

Benevolent or biased?

Both. I'm not sure I'd label a deity with no influence on the universe in any detectable manner could be labelled biased or benevolent.

Is the worth of god only in its ability or willingness to cater to human needs and desires?

No, I hope I didn't even insinuate that. The worth of any god would be in its influence on existence, whether a deistic "create-'em-then-leave-'em god or interventionist god; there's no reason to see any supreme being's fingerprints on the world whatsoever. My point was that a god who shows no discernable interest in the universe or the life within seems to be as relevant as a crippled idiot god.

I find that most atheists are simply disbelievers in the god concepts they are aware of. Generally this is the big religions that get "press coverage"... god concepts like the one I hold are often so alien that they can't grasp that what I believe in is ... god/Creator.
Hence all the whinging about "why would god let bad things happen"....

wa:do

I hope I don't sound condescending but I certainly haven't seen most atheists this way other than high-school internet atheists maybe. No philosopher I'm aware of would use such a crass interpretation of theodicy to make such an argument nor argue solely against the "concepts they are aware of."
The reason the big monotheistic concepts of god are tackled more often than your ambiguous god is simply that we live in the Western world where the big three monotheisms are dominant in culture, politics and debate.

I can grasp your creator/god-ism, I just don't find it philosophically tenable.

 

[Nepenthe]

So because god doesn't coddle us and spoil us that automatically means he/she/it/they can't be a benevolent god? How does that work?

I wasn't going to respond to this since it's witless gibberish and atotalstranger already destroyed it.
But I'm petty and vindictive so I respond thusly:

It doesn't work that way. I never even suggested what you propose. Hone your reading skills and maybe you'll understand what I wrote.

 

[logician]

"Logically you should 'believe' in the fact that you don't and can not know the truth about the existence or lack there of... of god"

This is a classic agnostic position, not an atheistic one.

 

[Willamena]

There is no logical basis for saying that we cannot know. We simply don't know whether we can know god exists or not, so we cannot logically conclude that we cannot know.

Perhaps true; but there are philosophical arguments that are logical and support it --do they count?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Perhaps true; but there are philosophical arguments that are logical and support it --do they count?

I couldn't say without knowing what they are.