Forget evidence, how about common sense?
Offline When debating atheism vs. theism it's almost always about how one side uses evidence and how the other uses faith. Obviously, as an atheist this should be enough since it's...rational. However, if our goal is to turn people away from religion, perhaps more practical approaches could be exercised. Below I break down the qualities/properties of the Christian "God," and briefly explain why it's foolish to believe.
There's no way to metaphysically identify the properties of a God so I will just relate what the Bible describes to that of the physical universe.
1. God is Omniscient: (God is all-knowing)
-- If "life" is supposed to be some sort of trial for humans to endure, why not just hit fast forward? If God already knows the outcome of our mortality, why does he need to let us figure it out on our own? It's not like the life experience will benefit the person once they go to Heaven or Hell, and no matter which place they go to, he would already know beforehand. So, life must be some sort of experience for God, as well. If our existence doesn't matter to us (because we shed our physical bodies when we die, returning us to our "spiritual" existence), and it doesn't matter to God (because he already knows the end result), then the experience of living must be some sort of form of entertainment, education (making God not all-knowing), or limitation for God. After all, should the collection of life choices we each make from the day we're born till the day we die, REALLY determine our eternity? That's like saying the Cardinals were destined to lose the Superbowl last year if they lost the opening coin toss. That leads me to the next to property of God.
2. God is Omnipotent: (God is all-powerful)
-- If God is forced to let our lives carry on this futile existence because he's too limited to hit fast forward - or skip the whole "Adam & Eve" Chapter, then he is not all-powerful. I think I can skip the endless calamities that plague our species like cancer, war, Bill O'Reilly, etc...It's unbelievably easy to prove God isn't all-powerful, whether he exists or not.
3. God is Omnipresent: (God is all places at once)
-- This one has always seemed self-defeating to me. If God is omnipresent, he knows what is always happening and if he chooses to let bad things happen while having the ability to stop these things, he's immoral. The argument that God doesn't interfere because every person is to be judged when they die means that when things do go horribly wrong, his ability as a creationist has failed. It really doesn't matter what the circumstance is, all actions, thoughts, feelings that we all possess, stem from the creation of a perfect being (assuming you believe in said being). Same applies to the planet. So if God knows what all the problems are across the planet, at all times, and they aren't prevented, he either doesn't care or he's imcompetent.Both disqualify him as God. Or at least, the Judeo-Christian God.
4. God is all-loving:
-- This one is laughable. Besides the pain and suffering our species as endured, by his own words (via the bible), he LOVES hate. In all forms.
- Login to post comments
Welcome to the forum!
The argument from evil is still going strong.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
So as not to be presumptuous
we emphasize (in the above), the word "if".
I'm not a Christian, but in my opinion, God is simply the sum of all energy of the universe and the laws governing that energy. All these personalized notions of god(s) are attempt to explain that idea to primitive people. Various smaller gods are descriptions of various kinds of energy, elements, natural principles and archetypes. Some old legends about gods are metaphorical descriptions of important natural events, like a forming of our solar system, for example.
In a sense, we are sort of gods as well, with a certain function and responsibility. Well, that could give some answers to the questions, but these are also no answers of the Christians, Jews or Muslims. This is the exoteric tradition, which causes problems. In their inner, esoteric tradition, all the religions are similar or the same. We have problems with Christianity, Judaism and Islam which wouldn't be there with Rosencrucianism, Kabbalah and Sufism. My advice to the theists is to learn about the esoteric tradition of their own religion.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Yeah, the "if" was to emphasize the choice of some, but not obligation of all. I understand many (including myself) try to coexist peacefully with religious people without protesting too much. Let's just say, hypothetically, if an atheist or agnostic wanted to challenge the beliefs of a religious person, then by taking a more practical and less scientific approach they could possibly reach more people. That was pretty much my point with this thread. Plus, I just joined and figured I'd throw something up to say hi :3
The characteristics assigned to God (mainly Christian) are of course ridiculous, but they are the core of a Christian's faith. If you tell them it's absurd to have any understanding of the limitations (or lack there of) of their God, they'll feel insulted. After all, the bible is the "word of God," and his abilities are clearly outlined. To challenge God's ability is to attack their faith directly. But that's sort of the point...
If you can have a rational discussion that asks questions without making accusations, it can cause a theist to think critically. If you can create doubt under this topic specifically (characteristics of God), then it's much easier for them to give up on the fantasy of religion.
Attacking bible verses is pointless, in my opinion. Attacking historical inaccuracies is pointless. Attacking one's lack of evidence is pointless. You'll grab the attention of those who ride the fence, of course, but we all know the apathetic and/or agnostics don't harm mankind like the religious do. Rationally, it makes sense to go straight for the jugular and use science vs. superstition to convert them... But who said a Christian is rational?
I think it's wiser to attack the foundation from which they want to believe in God. Essentially, instead of telling them religion is a crutch you kick the crutch from underneath them while helping them back to their feet.
Just to give an example of my reasoning...
The most applied, and talked about approach to slowing down or stopping illegal immigration in the United States is border patrol. Our response is always "build more fences," and "man more posts." A more interesting way to handle illegal immigration is to cut off the desire to come over at it's source: fine Business owners who hire illegal immigrants. When the Government begins to financially hurt Employers who hire illegal immigrants they stop hiring them. When it becomes too hard to find work in the United States because of steeper penalities towards business owners, the flow of immigration will also slow down. Now, this won't stop it completely but neither will fences, dogs, and guns. But it makes sense.
Christ.
Why do you require gods?
Why not refer to a physical phenomena as it is, rather than obfucate it and redefine it?
This in a nutshell is the bullshit of pantheism and panentheism.
Being free from these limitations, or at least aware of them, the world is a bit different place. What is physical and what is not? There are degrees of physicality, and octaves made of these degrees. What the scientists understand as physical, refers only to the lowest octave, and often not to all of it. Therefore, it is necessary to understand that all the phenomena around, no matter how much natural, are probably not all that there is.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
The argument from evil, is one of the dumbest argument an atheist can make, it can only work if a superstition is the arguments grounding, a belief in objective good. Is allowing bad things to happen while having the ability to stop these things, objectively immoral?
Any thinking atheist rejects this notion of moral objectivity all together, and concedes that morality is a subjective value, and the argument from evil only goes to show how dimwitted they are when it comes to questions of morality all together.
Good and Evil are aesthetic values, and subjective in nature, it's why I can say allowing bad things to happen while having the ability to stop these things, is not immoral. I can say that allowing bad things to happen, to preserve human freedom is a good thing, a moral thing. You may disagree, but you're void of legs to tell me that I'm illogical to hold this view.
Like if I possessed a chemical that if released, would tamper our minds in a way that would prevent us from ever doing evil, removing the capability of humans to act on evil impulses all together, their by creating a world, free of theft, violence, rape, lying, deceitfulness, etc., I wouldn't find it moral to release it.
If I perceive God as not acting to prevent bad things from happening, for the sake of a greater good, than I can see the act as "moral". Even our simpletons should understand this.
The head of the department of philosophy at my university told me that the argument from evil has been one of the strongest arguments against monotheistic religions since Epicurus. Most philosophers agree. Even if it not a sufficient deductive argument, it is still very problematic as a pragmatic argument.
That depends on whether the net result is bad and whether the God in question knows that it is bad.
That's really not the main issue. Most theists hold that morality is absolute so it is a problem for them regardless.
Sure, assuming you couldn't preserve human freedom without allowing bad things to happen. But, that would mean you're not omnipotent, wouldn't it?
I have a feeling that I don't disagree with what you think I disagree with.
Yes, but why does God have to allow bad things to happen to produce greater good in the first place? Isn't God omnipotent? If God is omnipotent, then it follows that there is no good that he could produce by allowing evil that he couldn't produce without evil. It simply lacks utility.
And, of course, your position is only strengthened by the fact that you can claim ignorance of God's plan, so you don't even have the obligation of justifying any real world problems. I mean, you don't actually have any evidence that this is what God does; it's just an ad hoc. If I asked you what greater good was produced by a six year old orphan being dragged into the woods by a serial killer and tortured to death, you probably wouldn't have any convincing answers. Your response would inevitably have to be something in the spirit of 'God moves in mysterious ways.' Since we'll never have the technology sufficient to analyze all causal chains, it's not even falsifiable either.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
The objectivity or otherwise of 'good' and 'bad' is irrelevant to the 'argument from evil'.
An omnipotent omniscient God would know that a particular course of action would cause pain and/or suffering to the individual(s) affected, IOW, unless they were pathological masochists, would regard the effect of that action as bad, by definition, which is precisely the point.
The experience of pain and suffering does have some commonality with aesthetics, but is much more objective to the individual than that that.
Now if there are demonstrable future benefits to the people affected which outweigh the suffering caused, that is an additional consideration, even in the 'trivial' case of unavoidable pain from medical treatment in cause of curing or ameliorating an injury or disease. Anyone but the simple-minded would understand that proviso. It certainly does not apply in general to suffering, especially to persistent suffering and chronic pain. It would be very unusual for easing pain and suffering to impinge in any way on freedom of action of the sufferer, rather a successful cure or treatment would increase their freedom of action.
If the suffering is being inflicted by another person, blocking the 'free will' of that individual is clearly a lesser 'evil' than allowing that individual to act against the will and health of the victim.
Denying the reasonableness and validity of the 'Argument from Evil' in this way is a typically lame Christian-inspired attempt to deny the patently obvious, in order to avoid admitting the dim-wittedness of the whole God hypothesis.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Well, I agree I find the argument from evil to be one of those most persuasive arguments for disbelief, in fact my years of disbelief were based on primarily this alone. But the popular rendition of it presented here, is whats a joke. The i.e. "There's evil in the world, god doesn't stop it, that's "immoral", and irrational to believe, as if we're arguing some sort of mathematical equation. The real question of the problem of evil, is one that wonders why God allows it, not one that claims god is immoral for allowing it.
The question is only persuasive when it involves a great deal or personal reflection, which the typical argument the atheist makes is void of. Here's my rendition of it, made years ago when I wasn't much of a believer: http://debate.atheist.net/showpost.php?p=12313&postcount=6.
Well, it doesn't matter if the theist believes in that morality is absolute or not. Since no theist believes that an all powerful god not stopping bad things from happening, is immoral. It's the atheist peddling this view. It's the atheist claiming absolute morality for the atheist idea of good and evil, not what the theist holds. The theist doesn't hold god allowing bad things to happen, as being immoral. The atheist believe that, and in order to force that belief on others, they have to confess they hold this notion of immorality as objective.
Agreed.
Well, of course. If a theist believed this, they'd have to believe that they're worshiping a malevolent God; that's unacceptable. Thus, they find rationalizations for it. It is the atheist that presses the issue of how a loving God can allow so much evil in the world.
What? No. First of all, while most atheist don't believe in any objective morality, they still hold to some provisional morality below the level of inherent right or wrong. On a human level, they believe that things like murder, rape, etc. are wrong.
Also, of course it is not the position that the theist holds. The atheist is arguing that it is a position that logically follows. The atheist doesn't have to accept that the theist's premises are true to find inconsistencies.
He doesn't even have to do that much.
Clearly, not everyone is equally moral, and, in the Christian worldview, everyone has free will. Well, why doesn't God just create us to be more moral in the first place? It is not possible that we can have free will, but choose what is good more often?
So...God is not supposed to help us; we're supposed to help each other?
Sounds like 'war is peace' to me.
So...it's better for the orphan in the previous example to have the "freedom to be tortured to death" rather than the "lack of freedom to not be tortured to death?"
Wasn't that a sin? I thought God was angry that Adam and Eve ate the fruit. You would disobey God?
I wonder whether the orphan being tortured to death wants your world or mine.
Ha, haughty little devil aren't ya, suggesting that the millions of atheists in this world never suffer.
See? You're using suffering as a gimmick in the argument.
Anyways, this isn't evidence for God, it only shows that people want to believe in God. It helps them mentally cope with their suffering. It'd be nice if he was more than just a placebo effect though.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare