"I won't believe in God because of evil"

Started by mendacium remedium, March 10, 2013, 10:02:04 AM

Previous topic - Next topic


Quote from: "mendacium remedium"1. I never claimed this was the prime reason or the only reason why atheists do not believe in God.

2. I only asserted for a good number , this is one of the main reasons.  I have seen it deployed numerously.

Bottom line:  if you're going to try to refute atheist arguments against the existence of a god, start with one that's actually an argument against the existence of a god.

Quote3. Perhaps attack my argument, so i can then re-assess it, rather than arguing about me arguing? (not in a bad way)
Why bother?  It's pretty much exact same tripe that you posted last time around.  Some people did, and their replies have yet to be seriously addressed, both in that one and this one.

Nothing got reassessed.  Nothing got reworked.  You didn't even seriously consider that you might be barking up the wrong tree on this one.  No.  It's just the same garbage over and over again.  That's why you got the horns this time around.

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: "mendacium remedium"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"You will be surprised how many people emotively use this reason. The problem of 'evil' is quoted so many times, and i just feel people need to realize they just aren't standing on any ground, because there is no ground.
Really? You've done extensive interviews with these people and figured out that THIS is the reason why they don't believe in God? Show me your transcripts.

I never asserted this was the primary reason for all atheists. I don't even think this discussion belongs in this topic. My only claim is, i do know many people who do not believe God exists and one of the deciding factors is the 'problem' of evil.
You say "deciding factors", which given that people are wedded to the concept of god partially for emotional reasons, it only makes sense that an emotional reason can be one of those factors — to convince the parts of their brain that didn't reason themselves into believing in God.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu


Oh this is hilarious! Atheists don't say because there is evil, they reject God's existence. What is in fact true is, is that if you argue for a "maximally powerful" and "omnibenevolent" being, then you notice there is what we call evil in the world, your caught between a rock and a hard place, since one of those attributes inevitably has to be downplayed, or the concept itself rejected. And without external, objective evidence in the first place, the discussion is moot.

Also, you don't think atheists can believe there are objective moral truths/values? Then you seem to not be aware of Sam Harris' writing and debates on that very subject, wherein he argues for that from a secular perspective.

My post count ascends! :D
Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can\'t give way, is the offer of something not worth having.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty & wisdom, will come to you that way.
-Christopher Hitchens


I don't think morality is subjective, and people like you make me sick. Go burn in your imaginary hell. Pain exists.  Pain is bad. For the umpteenth fucking time, MORALITY IS NOT COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE AND ANYONE WHO SAYS IT IS IS AN IDIOT. I welcome any who wish to debate this point.
"The idea of getting a, y\'know, syringe full of heroin and shooting it in the vein under my cock right now seems like almost a productive act." -Bill Hicks

Teaspoon Shallow

Quote from: "mendacium remedium"........Thus, there is nothing objectively wrong with rape. However, rape destabilizes society. To an atheist, a stable society grants benefits in terms of survival, so it is in ones interest to not rape. There is nothing objectively disgusting about it, but it is 'immoral' because of it's consequence ultimately on survival........

This is the last argument I would expect from a theist who follows the Bible or Quran.

The daughters of thy enemy is your booty. So rape is okily dokily in certain scenarios according to scripture yet "objective morality" is taught to believers by God via this text. :rollin:


Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Before anyone bring up a discussion about proof GOD exists, please understand that is not key to my argument. I infer that you accept that IF a God exists, then why is there x y or z. Many of you i am sure have compelling arguments, but this is not the thread to post them in.

This thread has been inspired by some of the posts i have read on the 'why do you not follow or believe in God'. Whilst there are notably good reasons(which can be refuted), a lot of people attest that they do not accept a God who could bring death, suffering, allow the human free will to cause so much carnage.
Yes, some people do use this argument. It's a stupid one. It is very rarely the argument used by a true atheist. It is more often used by callow youth who haven't really thought much through, and who believe that shallow pronouncements such as this are actually profound.

Of course, your post doesn't really deal with the reasons that this is a foolish argument. Your post veers off on irrelevant tangents, and makes a boatload of assumptions. Allow me, if you will, to explain why "I refuse to accept a god who would allow suffering" is a stupid argument.

1) A god who allows suffering could easily exist. Such a god would be either uncaring, in which case he would be an evil god, or unable to stop suffering, in which case he would be a somewhat impotent, useless god. But suffering alone is not evidence against god. It is merely evidence against an all-powerful, loving god.

2) Refusal to accept a god simply because that god doesn't act the way you want it to is foolish. If it's really a god, it doesn't matter whether you accept it or not, because it's going to do whatever it wants, and there's nothing you can do about it. If an evil god wants you to grovel at its feet in exchange for eternal life, then either grovel or die. But don't sit there and say "I refuse to believe in you," because that's just silly.

Suffering only tells us that god is either uncaring or impotent. It doesn't tell us there is no god. Of course, the complete and utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for any sort of supernatural phenomena at all (let alone actual supernatural beings) does tend to weigh rather heavily against the existence of a god, but that's another argument entirely.

So next time someone tells you they won't believe in a god who can allow such suffering, you can tell them that god either doesn't care what they think, or is unimaginably evil - but that either way, they'd better shape up, quick.


Quote from: "mendacium remedium"There is no good or evil: there are only acts which promote survival, and acts against survival. This is the 'scale' by which you can compare good and evil.

Incorrect.  Relative morality does not mean that good and evil don't exist.  It means that what is and isn't moral is relative to the actors involved in the event, and the circumstances justifying the actions taken.  This is why killing millions of humans in a Flood because they weren't obedient is immoral -- or evil, in my lexicon -- but killing a child-murderer isn't, in my eyes.

Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Furthermore, the scale by which you measure morality is survival. If a deity chooses to give eternal life for the finite one we live here, this nullifies the ground by which anyone can say ' x is good' or 'x is bad'. Thus, the argument for evil disproving God really is superfluous.

Not so.  The Argument from Evil is based upon the contradiction of an Omnimax God acting in a way that he himself defines as immoral.
<insert witty aphorism here>


Quote from: "mendacium remedium"To give you a practical example, take the below cell. You can have two positive electrode potentials, but the least positive one will be the negative terminal, i.e the one donating the electrons overall.

So why can't we find anything concrete like this in morality?

Because one is a physical construct that obeys the laws of physics, and the other is a social construct that works by consensus.

Do I have to draw you a diagram?
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato


Religion is Bullshit  . The winner of the last person to post wins thread .


Leo, why do you always put your periods one space after the end of your sentence? Seriously, that's been bugging the hell out of me ever since I got here.  :-k
"The idea of getting a, y\'know, syringe full of heroin and shooting it in the vein under my cock right now seems like almost a productive act." -Bill Hicks