09 Dec 07
Originally posted by rwingettIt would be perfectly rational within those parameters yes.
Now that you are acquainted with the concepts of 'hard' and 'weak' atheism, and since you are obviously familiar with the 'problem of evil', I have a question for you:
If god is defined as being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (all powerful, all knowing, and all loving), and if such a god is wholly incompatible with the presence of evil in th ...[text shortened]... in taking a hard atheist stance by asserting that such a god does not, and cannot, exist?
I personally think the argument is totally flawed because evil does not exist in any form.
For instance Hitler or Stalin weren't evil in any religious sense of the word. Psychotic genocidal maniacs yes, evil - afraid not.
Lets face it the moral yardstick by which some judge evil people or acts changes with time to such an extent that the phrase itself becomes worthless!
500 years ago the Church used to routinely burn people at the stake. Now such acts would almost universally be described as "evil".
09 Dec 07
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI'm afraid I don't understand how being a psychotic, genocidal maniac would not be considered evil. Moral relativism is only possible with the absence of a god. If there is a god, and if he is a supposedly perfect god, then his moral standard would be a perfect one which could not change.
It would be perfectly rational within those parameters yes.
I personally think the argument is totally flawed because evil does not exist in any form.
For instance Hitler or Stalin weren't evil in any religious sense of the word. Psychotic genocidal maniacs yes, evil - afraid not.
Lets face it the moral yardstick by which some judge evil people ...[text shortened]... ely burn people at the stake. Now such acts would almost universally be described as "evil".
But let us leave aside the 'man made' evils for a moment and consider 'natural evils.' Tsunamis, hurricanes, disease and the like. In a world with no god, these phenomena are purely natural events without any moral quality to them. But in a world that is designed by a god, these events assume a moral quality. In such a world tsunamis don't just randomly happen, they are explicitly caused by the designer god. Wouldn't the presence of killer tsunamis be incompatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god?
09 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by NordlysI disagree, religion carries with it 'do and do not’s' which when applied
I agree entirely. Also, I can't believe in something just because it would be convenient or nice or make life easier. I think that is a strong factor that leads many people to becoming religious, but it only works as long as you are not aware of it. As soon as you become aware that your religious beliefs are mostly for your own convenience, it doesn't work anymore, and the beliefs will have to hold up to reason. For me they didn't.
to anyone no matter what set of rules they are required more effort
than someone who has nothing but whatever they decide they want
and if some wants are a little shady it is what they can get away with
in the here and now.
With religion those do and do not’s are not created with in the person
following a religion's doctrine and they are not modified by them on a
whim too, which is the case when you get to make it up as you go.
There is nothing easy about religion it can make one's life much more
difficult since one is required to walk out one's faith in the face of
personal lusts, societal norms that do not agree with your belief and
so on.
Kelly
09 Dec 07
Originally posted by KellyJayHang on a minute!
I disagree, religion carries with it 'do and do not’s' which when applied
to anyone no matter what set of rules they are required more effort
than someone who has nothing but whatever they decide they want
and if some wants are a little shady it is what they can get away with
in the here and now.
With religion those do and do not’s are not created wi ...[text shortened]... ce of
personal lusts, societal norms that do not agree with your belief and
so on.
Kelly
How many religious zealots commit terrible acts only to have their God forgive the sins?
Repent & God must forgive you. That's one hell (pardon the pun) of a get out of jail card.
Atheists (weak or strong 😉) have their conscience & cannot seek forgiveness from God.
09 Dec 07
Originally posted by SquelchbelchForgiveness comes from some one else, those that have a right
Hang on a minute!
How many religious zealots commit terrible acts only to have their God forgive the sins?
Repent & God must forgive you. That's one hell (pardon the pun) of a get out of jail card.
Atheists (weak or strong 😉) have their conscience & cannot seek forgiveness from God.
relationship with God in Christ at least that is the case with
Christianity. You think someone who is tempted to do wrong
and rejects it doesn't some how suffer through being tempted,
or the poor people who some times fall and get back up again,
and again are having an easy go of it? Standards of loving others
as you would be loved, or treating others as you would be
treated are high; they are not just an easy out. God's grace and
mercy are free in that we cannot earn them, but they did come
with a great cost; this is walked out daily in the lives of Christians.
There are people who do incredibly wicked or evil things and do
them in the name of some of the more righteous names or causes
known to man. We have people killing in the name of being
prolife and the list goes on. People justify themselves using
whatever they can to do the things they want to do. This does not
mean that the name or cause they use to stand under for
justification is some how to blame unless it specifically directs
them to do those things.
Atheist weak or strong also has their conscience in that there are
no differences between theist and atheist; it is true that they cannot
seek forgiveness for all of their crimes or actions that go against
their own conscience. The atheist has no where to go for blanket
forgiveness, they do not have a single person who represents all of
creation for their sins against conscience or others they have
nothing! Their only hopes are in their own arguments for
justification or to deny the need for justification. It is all an attempt
to put things behind them, since anything that touches them
internally that they cannot live with, might destroy them since they
have no remedy. They have nothing to hope for so they hope for
nothing.
Kelly
09 Dec 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhy? Because I believe in something you can't find a rational argument against?
I think you're smoking some serious crack, friend.
By believing in the nonexistence of eternal life you put yourself in the untenable position of defending the existence of nothing beyond physical death.
Living forever is what it's all about. Why not get on board?
If at death you cease to exist because you believe that eternal life is a myth, then your argument is based in the finite. But if you believe in eternal life the possibilities of life become infinite.
Why BE a finite being? Be an eternal being.
09 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by The Dude 84And atheists believe in eternal life?
Atheism is an argument for the non-existance of god. That's all.
People act like atheism is a rejection of everything religious. There are valuable things to be learned from religion, but not because they are religious per se.
Don't murder or commit adultery is from the Bible obviously, but believing in atheism doesn't preclude belief in these. O -existance. Can you explain what you mean at least? I suspect there's a miscommunication...
09 Dec 07
Originally posted by SquelchbelchYour rationale is based in relativism. Many people are born in places and at times and in circumstances that preclude them from ever knowing very much of anything at all.
Well your flag suggests you are American.
You are a Christian, yes?
If you had been born in the foothills of the Himalayas there's approximately a 99% chance you'd now be trying to convince everyone of the virtues of Buddhism.
Buddhism & Christianity have mutually exclusive ideas regarding God, the afterlife & much else besides.
Your choice of t ...[text shortened]... pressure & simple geography as much as any moment of of revelation.
Keep thinking friend.
It doesn't prove a thing.
09 Dec 07
Originally posted by rwingettYes, of course you're right. My argument is quite focused on just the matter of whether or not there is eternal life.
Atheism has no independant content. It is, as you say, purely a negation. But it does not follow that atheists therefore believe in nothing. They can, and do, believe in a great variety of things. Humanism, for example, is a positive belief IN something.