The Problem of Evil and how it provides evidence for the existence of God.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Akragon

I am aware of what selfishness is from my perspective it is defined as lacking of consideration for others. I am assuming you are talking about the intentions with which someone acts. So if his intentions are selfish his intentions lack consideration for others. If they are selfless they are done with consideration for others in mind. This does not prove your point as again the evil is a lack of the other so I assumed you where defining them differently.

I was being extremely vague to make a point, and taking into consideration Jesus said anything more then yes or no is from evil.

Selfishness is thinking only of the self, whereas selflessness is thinking nothing of the self.... those are the extremes of "good and evil" and there is much grey area.

Neither of which require a god in any sense to exist... only the ability to perceive which is which

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No atheism has no foundation for belief in the existence of moral values and duties. If you think it does please tell me what external reference outside of yourself that you are referring to when you say something is Good or something is Evil?

Oh for crying out loud!! When are you going to stop trying to dehumanize and malign atheists?

Atheists simply do not believe in your God - or anyone else's God.
The only 'external reference' needed is to be able to put oneself in the position of another:

Would the action being contemplated hurt you if it were done to you? Yes? Then don't do it to others. Period.
Empathy and compassion are all that is required.

Easy peasy.
Sheesh. Get it through your head! No one here is going to be converted by your attempted philosophical gymnastics here. You and Raggedyman also - neither of you get it. Atheists are perfectly fine people who have decided there's not enough evidence or reason to believe in an imaginary overlord. Period.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - all were nutjob megalomaniacs. Their lack of "religion" did not cause what they did. "Religion" would not have stopped them from doing what they did.

Deal with it.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Oh for crying out loud
When are you going to stop justifying inhuman atheists and stop dehumanizing christians buzz

Stop trying to convert people to atheism, you only cause division

PolPot, Stalin and Mao were all atheists all evil, to say all atheists are like that is stupid, as stupid as saying all religious are like Isis, having religion would not have stopped them, neither their atheist ideologies either

Your kind are no bett r, off your sermonising, moralizing high horse, deal with it

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

Your disbelief is your deity

Its' really simple. Someone proposes the existence of a deity, and calls it God. I reject that proposed deity's actual existence as well as the qualities that are being proposes that said deity possesses. I haven't met, nor heard of a description of a supernatural deity yet that exists or whose powers I "believe in".

You know what they say...."Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Some one proposes the existence of a living fossil, you deny it till you see it caught in a net, like a coelacanth
It's a tepid argument at best

I have never been outside of my country, every one is lying to me when they say they go overseas. Other country's don't exist, it's a giant conspiracy

The earth is flat, I can walk down a flat street it's not round, it's a big lie

That's exactly what you sound like

There is nothing wrong with your belief, atheism is a logical and valid principal, it is unproven so it is a belief, a choice, it is now become a religion with an argument and evangelicals
You can deny it and so you should, doesn't change the way many look at it
The FSM movement is an indication of atheists religious connotations, it's a movement, it's not a joke

a reply to: Raggedyman

...atheism is a logical and valid principal, it is unproven so it is a belief...

Nope. It the rejection of beliefs that have presented.

....a choice...

People don't have a choice when it comes to forcing their brains to accept what they deem as illogical. One can only pretend to believe or one can choose to suspend judgement, giving the presenter the benefit of the doubt until proof, one way or the other can be found.

a reply to: Raggedyman

When are you going to absorb the oft repeated fact that I am NOT AN ATHEIST?



Really need to work on your apologetics, man.

a reply to: windword

Yeah!!

How Does One "Make Themselves" Believe?

a reply to: Raggedyman

I have offered substance not rhetoric. I possibly over explained a position you actually weren't holding if you understand that neither pol pot nor the pontifs and kings under Christianity used a belief or lack of belief to murder and kill. Greed can be a killer for anyone of any race of any creed of any faith or faithless perspective.

Your example of consensus? Where was that? Your saying Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin did not have dissenters? They certainly did. They all used force to persuade peoples opinions. Thats not a social contract and it's very specifically discussed by Roseau, Locke, and others in social contract theory. It's even in Leviathan even though I am not a fan of the overlying position.


Thats just basic philosophy. Not even diving into massive discussions and volumes of writing of making doing ontological and epistemological work. Also for the what created and how stuff we have Cosmology. Philosophy and science to draw from.

I am not a hater of religion. I think that to discredit the bible as far as a human work in evolutionary psychology is rediculous. The fact that we have a pretty dense volume of philosophy and theology that is 1000 years BCE is worth respecting and studying alone.


Honestly as a sort of pandiest I think the OT and NT do have volumes of incredibly thoughtful and meaningful writings.

It's also very obvious what was much less enlightened and added by kings and rulers to keep more rigid social structures for control and class division and what was superstition from previous generations.

For over a million years a thoughtful human evolved not just physically but also psychologically. Since intellect is our weapon and survival the social evolution was also part of man's rise.

Just briefly, back in the old time you could do what Isis does, chop peoples limbs off, leave survivors and create societies based on fear of a ruler. If punishment coincides with a manual you are supposed to use its very effective for controlling masses. I don't think the Jews were the first to figure this out.

That doesn't take credit away from real mysticism which exist in the writing though. There were still mystical, ethical, people who became legends but they became used like a gun control victims today. Just a way to control conversation

You have to know which writing was from greedy men and which from the mystics and to do that you should have discussions about what morality really is.

Like this simple one that isn't religeous.


When you act imagine your action as a universal action. If everyone lies there is no truth. If everyone tell the truth there are no lies. Etc.
.
And don't use people as a means to an end. People are the end. Meaning they are not a ladder to climb on. They are the end of the ladder. Everyone deserves to be left alone and given their liberty without being manipulated for someone else's gain.

Very very basic not religious moral and ethical

Funny though so many religions can not follow them.

For instance the south has more discrimination lawsuits and law convictions though they are supposedly spiritual.

I would not disagree on anything you have said on a philosophical level
but
I am a christian, so my philosophy does not equate with yours
I would though question to a few things

The South, meaning the entitled US of A. No arguments, entitled christians make the worst type of christians.

Read what is said by the opposing view in this very thread. I have no issues with many many atheists, their morals I accept are far better than many christians i have met.
My argument is there are as many fundamental, evil atheists as there are christian, its that simple.
Maybe not your intended point but it is mine
Bad people will say, do, use anything to justify their actions

Now I could go onto an explanation defending the laws of the Old Testament, explain how it was originally given to humanity to outline a just human system, that it was manipulated by the religious elite (now where do we see that today ?) to justify themselves and control the weary masses.
Even today we see the Western nations hacking, slashing and burning their way across the globe, its people everywhere.
I dont think society has advanced, even in the A&NE people valued peace, same as today.
Then I could explain Jesus simple, clear and basic message of love to His people, love being the true moral standard.
It always gets lost here, in the church, in this world

Strangely luthier, I hate the christian church, I have seen its stupidity, arrogance, greed and its dirty underbelly.
I have seen the same outside the church
Its people who are broken, the world is broken, its not about blame, its about restoration.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

...atheism is a logical and valid principal, it is unproven so it is a belief...

Nope. It the rejection of beliefs that have presented.

....a choice...

People don't have a choice when it comes to forcing their brains to accept what they deem as illogical. One can only pretend to believe or one can choose to suspend judgement, giving the presenter the benefit of the doubt until proof, one way or the other can be found.

Oh, I am sorry, I didnt realise you knew everything there was to know, silly me

Your argument against religion is mine against evolution with one single glaring difference.
I am not arrogant or ignorant enough to say no, I can say its possible.

You are a fundamentalist as I can tell

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

www.ibtimes.com...

In February 1989, two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, a research paper by Georgian historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin’s rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40 million.


Buzz, your faith is not really an issue, my issue is explaining clearly and concisely that evil is a human issue, not something you can blame on either group a, b or c to justify a silly argument

I truly hope you can one day learn to differentiate people from their groups.

a reply to: Raggedyman

A research paper, published in a tabloid ..... yeah that is a source worth trusting .....

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

A research paper, published in a tabloid ..... yeah that is a source worth trusting .....

Oops sorry

I guess maybe stating 40 million was to many, lets find a lower number to make it seem more sensible and acceptable

Lets see what else I can find

necrometrics.com...

www.nybooks.com...

historyofrussia.org...

www.distributedrepublic.net...

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

imgur.com...

Hope the fewer million makes you a happier person

Should have gone Mao, whats that approximately 70 Million, good little atheists who

equated humanity no higher than cattle

What a ridiculous comment

a reply to: Raggedyman

Thank you for the olive branch.

Beliefs are tough to debate there is always a lot of passion.

I think I understand your positions better and I should apologise for any strawmans I may have created by not understanding your full position.

I think the debates and interesting discussion takes place in the cracks.

Probably because if we are being honest I had some good early lessons of being schooled by very good Christian apologist philosophers in college debating (many years ago).

There are strong cosmological and teleological debates for God which I think elevate thinking about what we are in the grand scheme of things. For both sides.

This bickering though about beliefs just stops us from having good debates about ontology form instance. There hasn't been a winner for thousands of years in the debates. Diagoras is said to be the first western written account of atheism. Thats more than 2500 years ago. Nobody has clearly won any debates about ontology or Cosmology. There have been varying degrees of valid arguements but it's an agree to disagree situation or agnostic aproach in terms of debate that is reality as far as arguement goes. Nobody living today has the proof to persuade an arguement beyound debating. Which is still useful if done with respect. For both sides.

Don't get caught up in the divisiveness of today. The beauty of the NT to me is the rejection of force and the emphasis on love.

a reply to: Raggedyman

How about a peer reviewed journal?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

How about a peer reviewed journal?

What a ridiculous comment

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Raggedyman



Beliefs are tough to debate there is always a lot of passion.

I think I understand your positions better and I should apologise for any strawmans I may have created by not understanding your full position.

I think the debates and interesting discussion takes place in the cracks.

Probably because if we are being honest I had some good early lessons of being schooled by very good Christian apologist philosophers in college debating (many years ago).

There are strong cosmological and teleological debates for God which I think elevate thinking about what we are in the grand scheme of things. For both sides.

This bickering though about beliefs just stops us from having good debates about ontology form instance. There hasn't been a winner for thousands of years in the debates. Diagoras is said to be the first western written account of atheism. Thats more than 2500 years ago. Nobody has clearly won any debates about ontology or Cosmology. There have been varying degrees of valid arguements but it's an agree to disagree situation or agnostic aproach in terms of debate that is reality as far as arguement goes. Nobody living today has the proof to persuade an arguement beyound debating. Which is still useful if done with respect. For both sides.

Don't get caught up in the divisiveness of today. The beauty of the NT to me is the rejection of force and the emphasis on love.

Not only are beliefs tough to debate, they are tougher to hold
The bible itself calls christians to have faith when it seems faith should be abandoned, it urges christians to hold on when logic dictates the sheer pointless nature of belief in our lives situations
There is no argument from me.

and again, I wont condemn another persons views on the logic of atheism, it seems logical. I can hold my hand up and say that my personal faith makes absolutely no sense, I understand an atheists position

But how can a person that is an animal consider evil, they cant, only from a subjective viewpoint based on false assumption of right and wrong, something imposed by the greater community.

I go to a church that can be divisive, should I not get caught up.
The Gospel message is how christians live their lives like christ, I have to be caught up.

I believe humanity was created for a singular purpose, relationship, both with God and each other.
No need for telos when the answer is smashed in my face here and in the reality of life, we need each other to live.

Cosmology in and of itself is just an argument to divide, I could accept evolution if the evidence is provided without mass assumption, my default will be creation

My intention is never to argue, just question the arrogance and divisiveness I see from so many people, not just here on ats.

The beauty of the NT to me is also the rejection of force and the emphasis on love, even at personal cost.
Christians have to rely on the not yet not now, the promise of the future

I also enjoy a little bit of sniping here and there

a reply to: Raggedyman

To me as a diest/panthiest I would say evil is described as knowing better but doing harm. Or purposely constructing behavior to sabatoge another's life. To abandon rational thought even after its realized.

For instance I don't think a person who was severely abused or neglected as a child and traumatized who acts out as evil compared to a person who has had a decent life who chooses to act out. I do believe even purely through philosophy that intent is important. Christians may believe that is where judgment lies. Not too far off from each other.

I think from perspective and arguements I battle with the mysticism of creation and there has been some valid arguements. The big bang doesn't prove there wasn't a designer and creator nor does genetics. Even if we proved aliens created humans without going through infinite regress what created the big bang and those aliens.

How did evolution as a force of nature come to exist?

Was it designed? Is evolution a necessary force like gravity? Can. Universe exist without biological evolution?

Why did it mean that observers seem necessary for existence? Even down to altering quantum behaviour?

To me these are valid types of arguements when choosing to argue with Atheists. Scripture itself is not a good debate tool although the meanings of the examples can be.

For me this is what I feel. For you it your Christian faith. I think we can meet and have dialogue exchange ideas and argue and realize without the bitter exchanges.


My point of this whole arguement originaly was to say I dont find evil a compelling arguement for God. Rationally I think it the opposite.

a reply to: luthier

I can understand evil being a compelling argument
It was never our nature, never meant to be.
Outside of evolution, we can only assume we were created for a purpose, relationship can be the only purpose if we realise we are what we are and who we are with, on a constant bases. We are a community.
If one considers we are animals then the assumption is negated.

To understand evil is to understand the nature of Gods justice, God demands justice, evil must be eradicated for the sake of rest. Humans learn from experience, evil in most cases hurts the victim and at times the perpetrator, why forgiveness is so important
Evil must be experienced so we can acknowledge the need of justice, seek justice, seek peace.

I can understand evil being a compelling argument and I can understand why some would reject that notion, some reject what evil in its forms can be, hence the need for an independent arbiter

People get lost in the God of love, He is also a God of justice, loving justice with a consideration of intent no doubt but justice. His job not mine.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Generally speaking in philosophy the problem of evil is considered a problem for theology to explain omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenovelant aspects of God. The answers from theology kind of meander into infinite regress.

If God knows everything not only are there free choice issues but he knows the injustice is going to happen and possibly created it to happen if he is all powerful. He certainly didn't stop it. If he is omnibenovelant why would he want to create evil? Why not make perfect beings? What is the purpose of evolution etc.

The answers often rely on one to have faith which is fine from a belief standpoint but comes up short in terms of a valid arguement.