Answering Atheists

[SigurdReginson]

People who say they don't believe in evil, I don't believe are stating their beliefs accurately.
If someone breaks someone's house, kidnaps and rapes a child. Tortures and kills it... to the Hindu, I ask, is that evil? What is it, if not evil? (I believe Hindus differ in beliefs, because i spoke to a Hindu, who believes that's evil)

However, I think they would be more accurate in saying, evil is determined by the person. So for example, one person may view a particular act as evil, but another may not. Somewhat like people today view morals.
So they do not believe is an "absolute" or standard of evil.

That seems more of an accurate concept to me.

What is sin to the person who doesn't believe in sin? What is evil to the person that doesn't believe in evil?

The reason you have a hard time wrapping your head around this might not be their fault... Instead of just assuming what you think they are thinking, you could just ask them what they think.

 

[AlexanderG]

I think the dad who takes his bawling, tearful child to get an injection to protect it from some disease is morally upright.
I think the dad who allows his child to get an operation, though painful, and the child will have to face that pain for weeks or months, is morally upright.
What about you?

God is not oblivious to the pain of hungry children. I think of the pain of hungry people, when I am hungry, and don't hurry to eat.
God knows the pain better than I do.
Should God end the world now? Should he panic, and say, I can't take this suffering? Where would that leave you, or millions?
(2 Peter 3:9) . . .Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.
That sound quite moral, doesn't it?

No. God is patient. Unlike us, he does not panic. Unlike us, his hands are not tied, so that he can't do what we can't.

Spoiler

(Matthew 11:4-6)
In reply Jesus said to them: “Go and report to John what you are hearing and seeing: The blind are now seeing and the lame are walking, the lepers are being cleansed and the deaf are hearing, the dead are being raised up and the poor are being told the good news. Happy is the one who finds no cause for stumbling in me.”

Unlike us, God knows what is best, and he does what is best... in his own time, and way.
When we see the whole picture, we understand. When we see pieces of the situation, we judge it based on limited facts.
It's good to consider all the facts. That helps a lot.

Thus, not only is God morally upright, but he is loving, just, and wise... not to mention, we will all see his power... in most cases, in a way we wish we didn't. However, the righteous one will be blessed by that power... according to the Bible.

The difference is that a parent can't snap their fingers and protect their child from a disease, or magically remove any pain from an operation for their child. An omnipotent god could, and an omnipotent human parent would if they were loving. That's our point. We work within our limits to minimize suffering to the least amount possible, but there will still be some suffering because WE are limited in what we can do.

Your assertion that god is actually perfectly loving and this suffering is all part of his plan is just an empty assertion, and an appeal to mystery. You can't even show this god exists, let alone what it intends, plans, or does, and all the Christians say different things about those attributes of god, which we would expect if they were just projecting their various personal views onto their imaginary individual conceptions of a god.

There is plain, observable evidence all around us for suffering that is gratuitous, meaningless, and unnecessary. Again, this is all what we would expect if there were no tri-omni god. Why is this god indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist, and what use is such a god?

 

[Meow Mix]

There is no "atheist argument." The thing you are referencing is the Epicurean Paradox.

Question: could one create a world with freedom and not include "suffering" within it's creation? Why, or why not?

In the Religious Debates section I have 3 posts floating around that digest this; the one in particular that might be interesting is called Toy Worlds and the Problem of Evil.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Evil is in itself a loaded concept. Different cultures, religions, and even people have different concepts of "desirable and undesirable" from each other - some with something close to your idea of good and evil, some have something else entirely.

Everyone can agree that the examples you provide are horrendous, but to attribute something as "evil" is to give it extra meaning, just like "sin." Sin and evil only applies to folks who believe in sin and evil as concepts, and applies little value to those who don't. Do you see the value in Dharma? How about Frith? If you don't believe in those ideas, maybe apply that notion to those who do believe those things and look at your idea of what good and evil are.

This. To add, I attribute rape and murder to societal problems with many possible causes, including really bad, untreated mental illness. Worse than your normal case of borderline personality disorder even, I think. But there can be other reasons and motivations too.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

In the case of rape, there's something about combining sex and violence that people do for some reason. But I've read in Psychology that a top reason for rape is the raper hating people of the gender that they're raping and wanting to work that out on someone with violence. I don't know that for sure, though

 

[nPeace]

But he knew what would happen and allowed all of this evil and suffering to unfold without doing anything to stop it.

Without doing anything to stop it?
Can you offer a suggestion on what he should have done to stop it? I really am interested in hearing it.

Sure, he didn't create suffering technically, but he set up the dominoes.

Set up the dominoes? How?

That's negligence at best, but it seems very intentional by creating the tree of knowledge of good and evil and leaving it there. That's no better than creating evil if he had the power to stop it from starting in the first place according to the rules he set in place. He could have made the rules be anything he wanted, and this is what he chose.

Is this what you mean by set up the dominoes?
So your putting food on the table, and telling your children not to eat is, is equivalent to setting food on the table, and telling your cat not to eat it?
So if you ask why they ate it, they should go "Meow".
Joke.... but you get the point... I hope.

He didn't need to make it so anything overwhelmingly negative could even be a part of existence at all - especially if he knew those things would become exploited by evil in the future (such as pain and mental trauma).

Maybe you should be God.
That was another joke.
Actually, you are answering a question raised through this whole experience, but I am interesting in hearing your suggestions.
What should he have done, exactly?

Then again, the guy did create hell. Why would he dislike or be against suffering if he made an entire plain of existence where it's the only thing anyone there can feel? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me... Is sadism a trait of a god who is all good?

Did someone tell you that God created hell?
I hope you didn't swallow it, because I'd have to ask what other things you have been told.
Did you actually read that God created hell? Can you show me where? I'd like to see it for myself.

 

[PureX]

I am an atheist. That means I lack a positive belief in or have a disbelief in gods. That is all. It is not an argument, it simply tells you that I don't believe like you do.

The 'argument', of course, is in the why. Ya'll keep leaving that part out. You focus incessantly on "disbelief" so you don't have to defend what you DO believe.

 

[nPeace]

The argument assumes God as the ultimate source of everything (i.e. the "prime mover" or "uncaused cause" from the Cosmological Argument).

I think we can explore the PoE without this detail, but then the question of responsibility gets muddier: I've had theists argue to me that God would have no responsibility to prevent evil he didn't create. I'm not sure I agree with that, but it's a rabbit hole we don't need to go down for belief systems with a monotheistic creator-god: if God is the ultimate source of everything in the universe, then God is the ultimate source of all evil in the universe, so we are talking about God's own actions.

Yes starting with wrong assumptions will muddy things... especially if one is willing to tread that path with the one who brought the mud.

No, I don't think so.

Why not?

But where did Satan come from? Wasn't it ultimately God?

Where did you get that idea?

You talk about "wrong thoughts," but what factors that could influence our thoughts aren't ultimately within God's control?

What is a thought? Is it external, or internal? In other words, does it come from inside, or outside?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The 'argument', of course, is in the why. Ya'll keep leaving that part out. You focus incessantly on "disbelief" so you don't have to defend what you DO believe.

Why? Well, for me and that is only for me. I don't need to believe in God to cope with being a human. Good enough???

 

[nPeace]

I don't follow what you're saying here. What would make it "unwise" to do that without inflicting suffering on a person?

You'll have to know and understand why God allows the suffering, in order to see the wisdom in what he does. Would you not?

Because if God can achieve the ends without inflicting the suffering, then the suffering was optional. God's decision to include it would have been based on God's desire for the suffering in its own right.
That's interesting. "God can achieve the ends without inflicting the suffering"

So, you are saying you know the ends that God seeks to achieve?
If you did, I don't think you would say "God's decision to include it would have been based on God's desire for the suffering".
So either you know the end that God is achieving, or you are not certain. It's evident you don't. Do you think you know?

IOW, God would be a sadist.

God may be able to do anything he wants, but what he does - and what he wants - is a reflection on his character.

Yes. I agree. That's why millions who have come to know what he does, and why, have come to love him. That includes Atheists, and people who formally hated God, and wanted nothing to do with him... the God of Abraham, that is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why not?

I did a separate post about that.

Where did you get that idea?

From theists... particularly the ones saying that the Cosmological Argument reflects their God.

But if you have different ideas about where Satan came from, please share.

What is a thought? Is it external, or internal? In other words, does it come from inside, or outside?

I'm using your term, so you tell me what you meant.

Which do you think doesn't ultimately come from God: internal or external?

 

[nPeace]

So then how, exactly, is your god all-powerful? When a tiny thing like Free Will (of which he apparently often ignores) can foil all his plans, how is he all-powerful?

What does power have to do with a choice.
If God were demonstrating his power, we'd all be dead - from Satan down,
So no one would be around to complain.

However, God demonstrates his love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

Power has nothing to do with love. Both can work together though.
(1 Corinthians 13:1-3) If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I do not benefit at all.

Surely, God doesn't fit that bill.

 

[PureX]

Why? Well, for me and that is only for me. I don't need to believe in God to cope with being a human. Good enough???

But is it really all about you? And what you need or don't need? Just asking. And if your DISbelief is based on your need or lack thereof, why shouldn't a theist's belief be based on his needs? Yet this is NEVER an acceptable course of reasoning for atheists. It's the main objection they have against theism ... that it's subjective.

Just sayin'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But is it really all about you? And what you need or don't need? Just asking. And if your DISbelief is based on your need or lack thereof, why shouldn't a theist's belief be based on his needs? Yet this is NEVER an acceptable course of reasoning for atheists. It's the main objection they have against theism ... that it's subjective.

Just sayin'.

Well, I am not all atheists and I can't speak for their individual reasons for their whys. I can only speak for me and it is an acceptable course of reasoning for my as an atheist. Go figure.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

What does power have to do with a choice.

Much. If we have the ability to foil many of his "plans" with so small a thing as free will, then your god is not all-powerful.

 

[nPeace]

But it wasn't a full answer. You said "Satan," but didn't Satan ultimately come from God?

Your children come from you, yes?
Does that mean they will be like you, and think like you, and cannot think for themselves, and make their own decisions?
Of couse not. Why is god to blame for what Satan thinks?

What do you mean by "freedom," and what bearing does it have on the question at hand?

Are you asking for more information of this freedom?
I mentioned it, as one of the reasons God allows suffering.
God did not have to make a provision for Adam's children. He could simply have said, "Okay. The dad sins. The defect passes on to the children. They all get sick and die. That's the end of that."
God made provision for mankind to be redeemed as his children, with life in view - the real life - everlasting life - true freedom from suffering, pain, and death

So you think suffering and evil exist so God could test us?

No. Again, for emphasis.
The Bible tells us, that god does not test us with evil. James 1:13, 14
Where did you get that from my post?

- was God capable of knowing what the results would be without actually testing us? If yes, then the test (and the accompanying suffering is unnecessary). If no, then God is not omniscient.

- was God capable of testing us in a way that didn't involve evil and suffering? If yes, then the suffering is unnecessary. If no, then God is not omnipotent.

So this is based on a wrong premise.

Also, you do realize that you're contradicting yourself, right? "God did not intend evil or suffering" and "God intended evil and suffering to test us" cannot both be true.

No. You are contradicting what I said.... hence that would be a misunderstanding.

 

[Magic Man]

Without doing anything to stop it?
Can you offer a suggestion on what he should have done to stop it? I really am interested in hearing it.

I can. Snap his fingers. That's how he created the universe, right? So, he should be able to do anything that easily. Unless you're saying he can't do it, which means he's not omnipotent.

 

[Magic Man]

Your children come from you, yes?
Does that mean they will be like you, and think like you, and cannot think for themselves, and make their own decisions?
Of couse not. Why is god to blame for what Satan thinks?

Last I checked, I'm not omnipotent or omniscient. So using me or any other human as a comparison for your god doesn't work. God created Satan and everything else, supposedly knowing what would happen. He has the power to either not have created it or to have created it differently (a power we humans don't have), and therefore he is to blame.

If I knowingly create a machine that will go around and murder dogs and let it out into the world, I'm responsible for that machine existing and causing the harm it does.

 

[nPeace]

There are probably some that would put it like that.

I would probably phrase the argument more like this.

If God is the creator of everything, he also created or allowed for evil to exist, claiming that he is omnipotent, omniscient and all good and not getting rid of evil does seem to make these claims conflict with each other.

Yes. If God created everything, but we know God did not create ISIS bombs, or the atomic bomb, etc., so that alone tells us, we should not conclude that God created everything, right?

God allows evil, but there is a big difference between allowing something, and causing it, right?

So, apparently, your argument is missing a lot, if it is supposed to stand.

 

[osgart]

I suggest starting a thread that asks what atheists DO believe.

This thread is about acknowledging an argument against God.

I suggest carefully defining the concept of evil as well.

I don't think any two atheists will be exactly alike and common in their beliefs.

Perhaps theists consider atheism an either/or proposition. I don't think it is that.

I mean some atheists do carefully consider their own arguments against the existence of God. I think many atheists don't believe the existence of God warrants much consideration.

So maybe you want to engage arguments against a particular God. If that particular God is inconsistent or false on even one point then why dig deeper into that God's existence?

Or is this thread about any God or gods? I believe it's called natural theism.

I may suggest that to get a positive claim about reality from an atheist that you should blatantly ask for such information in another thread.

It seems to me that many atheists exclude the possibility of a God, and affirm that reality has many unanswered questions to it that would be better investigated by discovering natural processes and not supernatural interventions.

So theists on RF are always on the defense. And atheists are always on the offense. Is that the pattern here?