#3. If God existed, there would not be evil in the world.
That’s a totally irrational argument. A bad God could exist as well as a good one, for one thing. Secondly a good God could allow evil for a time, say to teach us just how stupid and self-righteous we are when left to ourselves. In fact I can’t think of a more rational way of teaching a kid something than to let them go eat with pigs for awhile, come back and say “make me like on of your hired servants.”
Can you think of a better way to teach us a lesson we will remember more than a week?
It was Einstein who said, “Two thinks are infinite. The universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.”
Precisely the point. What would a good God do about “infinite” human stupidity other than allow evil for a time?
You missed the point. The logic of the law is that you can’t impugn the integrity of a writer without proving they were devious or making up stuff. Nor can you simply argue “eyewitness testimony is notoriously bad” as proof of anything.
As if “a bunch of goatherders and fishermen” could make up the parables and similies attributed to Jesus. No jury would buy that argument.
You would need to demonstrate that the new testament was indeed based on eye witness accounts. It’s church tradition that attaches the names to the documents.
The logic of law questions eye witness testimony as it’s generally the worst form of evidence.
I don’t even think the gospels are supposed to be histories. I think it’s clear that they are supposed to be stories - which is why they have things in them that couldn’t have been known.
As to a bunch of goat herders and fishermen making up the parables - why not? Joseph Smith did a good job and he was no genius. Still, you don’t know that goat herders and fishermen DID write the gospels. You’d need to provide evidence of that prior to the rest of this.
I don’t think that the NT is ‘eyewitness testimony’.
I also don’t believe that’s the only reason why the NT shouldn’t be believed. I think that the fact that it outlines a bunch of supernatural things which has no contemporary evidence to support it (the gospels weren’t written during the events). So, when Matthew has a bunch of zombies jumping out of their graves, I would expect some of the numerous historians at the time to mention it.
I think the fact that the NT is not any different the other stories going around at the time makes it dubious. I don’t believe stories of miracles now-a-days, when we could supposedly witness them, and I’m supposed to buy them from thousands of years ago?
If I take us off track? What you’re bringing up is already a hijack.
You’re claiming that atheists try to prove Jesus wasn’t the miracle doer the NT says he is? You may be able to find some atheists that do that, but generally we state that there isn’t any reason to take claims of Jesus’ miracles seriously based on a book that was written several years after the supposed miracles took place by people that weren’t first hand witnesses. Generally were not out to prove anything; we’re asking for sufficient evidence for us to have a reason to believe something.
It’s not meaningless when you look at the reason we ask the question. Context is everything. Theists (currently on the first page of GD) sometimes claim that everything has a cause, therefore God must exist. Asking them “Who created God?” is not intellectually meaningless in that case.
We make that argument against those that claim God is omnibenevolent. I’m sure you knew that already.
You don’t think there’s any gratuitous evil in the world? Does the good that comes out of a woman being raped and murdered always outweigh the evil of the act itself? When a cracked out couple of poor excuses for parents put cigarettes out on a six month old baby it teaches the baby…it teaches the baby what exactly? What do tsunamis that take out thousands of people teach us that can’t be taught without the evil act of purposely allowing the event to occur? An omniscient, wholly good being could prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering and teach the lesson or make the lesson irrelevant in the first place, since he’s omnipotent and all that.
Your ignorance of his other statements is frightening
You never mentioned anything about the Nazarene quote.
I know you did. All that did was undermine whatever point you thought you were making.
[Is this guy for real? Really??]
I claimed I have read all of his known letters. I have multiple times, with great interest. It is an interest of mine. And you don’t have to read more than 10% of them before it is absolutely clear that anyone claiming he was religious is deeply ignorant. That said, I have no idea why you expect me to be familiar with whatever specific quote you were referring to when you said “Read his Oct 1927 Saturday Evening post statements”. I have read those statements, sure, but you were not very specific.
I still can’t find that quote. Again, I said:
Einstein was not religious
to which you replied:
Your ignorance of his other statements is frightening
The implication is clear – that Einstein was religious. Otherwise there would be no reason for you call me ignorant regarding his position on religion.
You also added the totally bizarre and sophomoric non sequitur:
You are just as ignorant of ALL Jefferson’s or Adam’s statements because you haven’t read them all. I have
I would be happy to if you would clarify your position on Einstein. So are you claiming he was religious or not?
ETA: (referring to above post – outside of edit window). I found your Nazarene reference radorth, made well before I entered into a “discussion” with you. It was not in any way a part of a dialog between you and me.
You have the argument exactly backward. The atheist isn’t saying that God is *impossible *because something can’t come from nothing. The atheist is saying that God is *unnecessary *because whatever mechanism a theist posits for the origin of God can also be posited as the origin of the universe. If God doesn’t need a creator, then neither does the universe.
You misunderstand the argument. The point is that an “omnimax” God (omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent) is inconsistent with the nature of the world. Partially evil gods, or gods that are not all-powerful are certainly consistent with a world that contains a mix of evil and good.
An omnipotent God would have no need to jump through such hoops.
Beaming the lesson directly into someone’s brain would be better. It would be faster, more certain, and kinder. As mere mortals, we can’t do such a thing. An omnipotent God could.
So do you agree that it’s impossible for God to be omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent at the same time?
.
Is it Theists or Atheists who come closer to implying they know the ultimate answers to the biggest questions in the Universe?
Is this supposed to support the reasoning behind having faith in a supernatural God? Perhaps you didn’t mean it that way, I’m not sure. But I know that some theists have used similar lines of reasoning, and it strikes me as very odd.
“To be highly certain of something, with a very low order of evidence, or in contradiction to a mountain of evidence, is a sign something is wrong with your mind.”
If we were to find a planet with horse-like quadrupeds, with a single horn that neutralizes poison, and that gets sleepy in the presence of virginal human females . . . we still haven’t found a unicorn.
If there’s no way for that animal to have traveled to, or be transported to, Earth to provide the basis for the myth, it’s only a remarkably unicorn-like creature.
It ain’t a unicorn!
If there are infinite planets I’m sure we could find every creature in Barlowe’s Guide, but it wouldn’t say anything about Wayne Barlowe’s (or the authors he took the descriptions from) actual knowledge of extra-terrestrial life forms, would it?
Just because a thing is remarkably similar to something a human imagined does not mean it’s the same thing.
OK
Huh? Didn’t you just say that,
Our minds are somehow un-punied by faith?
And we can understand that this not understandable god has a name God, a gender, and some kind of relationship to someone named Jesus?
Either god is not, by definition, understandable or it is understandable.
I’ve only read the first 2 pages of this thread, so this post won’t be about later discussions.
I am a non-theist. The only feelings/thoughts I have which could be considered by some as within the definitions of the word “faith” occur when I act in a way which shows that I think that the future will be “better” than the present (in various specific ways), to a slightly greater degree than I* should* think this based just on evidence (of how the world is “progressing” and/or “regressing” in measurable ways).
This comes into play most clearly in my recent decision to become a parent.
I do, of course, realize that the underlying cause of this weak “faith” is how my brain is wired, and that it is wired in this way because natural selection has tended to favor organisms who produce descendants despite their perceving evidence that the world might not be “better” in the future.
Still, I cannot deny that this weak sensation of mine sure feels like what theists call “faith”. Indeed, it’s what allows me to sympathize with their ignorance, and to try to not be “evangelical” about my non-theism.
For exactly the same reason that the faithful attack atheists: insecurity. When one is entirely secure in one’s beliefs, the fact that others are not like minded is of no moment. But since many, probably the majority, of people find it difficult to be entirely secure in their beliefs, they seek to protect them, and this is most often manifested as an attack on opposing beliefs. (See: the Crusades)
(Defensive) atheists will rush in to say that they don’t “believe” they “know”, but it boils down to the same thing in practical terms.
There’s also the whole “I’m superior because I know the REAL truth” thing, but that’s a minor sideline, I think, to the issue of simply defending one’s belief system. People are generally more comfortable when they feel sure about things, all kinds of things, and they want very much to feel sure about whether there is a god or whether there is not, and once they’ve picked their team they stick up for it and piss on the other teams.
And we’re back to the “atheists are just believers in a different form” argument. Tu quoque, anyone?
Look, clearly I don’t speak for all atheists (especially since we don’t have a unifying dogma) but the main objection I have to faith is that frequently other people’s beliefs are imposed upon me without objective reason. Believe what you want, but when laws start getting made based solely on something that one god or another supposedly said a few thousand years ago I think I’m quite justified in objecting to it.
Believers are not being persecuted by being prevented from forcing others to adhere to the same beliefs.
Thank you for bringing this wonderful, wonderful quote to my attention!