Question for atheists regarding "the problem of evil"

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It actually should be said that the so-called Christians who are said to have done the objectionable crimes, are in fact atheists.

Oh, are we just making vacuous, bald assertions to suit ourselves now? Ok. I can do that just as easily as you can. Watch:

You have it exactly backwards. Every so-called atheist that has ever done anything morally wrong is actually a Christian.

 

[Serving Zion]

Oh, are we just making vacuous, bald assertions to suit ourselves now?

It isn't right to think of it as a vacuous and bald assertion. In fact it's probably the most solid assertion in this thread so far:

Jesus is taught as having said the final judgement is about how we have treated others: "whatever you did to even the least of these, my brethren, you were doing it to me". Now to reconcile that teaching with what has been found of the 10% of priests named, they cannot rightly be described as God-fearing Christians. In fact it probably goes further than merely saying that they are hedonists that think God doesn't see them, because only moments later they have stood behind the podium and started preaching. It actually requires a refined evil to have gotten a hold of them, in order that they would keep doing evil in an environment where words of truth are studied and professed (Matthew 6:23, 2 Timothy 3:13).

Ok. I can do that just as easily as you can. Watch:

You have it exactly backwards. Every so-called atheist that has ever done anything morally wrong is actually a Christian.

If you were serious, you would need to explain yourself. But I know that you are exaggerating for dramatic effect, I only am concerned that you perhaps aren't aware of what has made you do that.

 

[Juvenal]

Through 90 percent of its history, a Christianity insignificantly different from that of the OP, given just enough political power, has felt free to slay and otherwise molest atheists and godless heathen like myself, across entire continents, imagining themselves glowing with the approval of their God.

And now, having recently reformed, they hope for congratulations on their new-found discretion.

Rah.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It isn't right to think of it as a vacuous and bald assertion. In fact it's probably the most solid assertion in this thread so far

Nope. You're wrong. Mine is the most solid assertion in this thread so far.

You see, when we restrict ourselves to make believe, I can keep this game up just as long as you can.

And no, I don't care if your vacuous assertion is reiterated in scripture. That does not magically grant it credibility.

If you were serious, you would need to explain yourself. But I know that you are exaggerating for dramatic effect, I only am concerned that you perhaps aren't aware of what has made you do that.

I take your vacuous assertion exactly as seriously as you take mine.

 

[Serving Zion]

Nope. You're wrong. Mine is the most solid assertion in this thread so far.

You see, when we restrict ourselves to make believe, I can keep this game up just as long as you can.

I am not playing a game as you like to think it is. This is an incredibly serious matter, especially where the topic involves the sexual abuse of children by people allegedly representing Jesus Christ

This is about people doing evil in the name of God, and the casualties that have resulted because of it.

And no, I don't care if your vacuous assertion is reiterated in scripture. That does not magically grant it credibility.

It is the principle that matters. There is no support for you by disregarding a collection of principles upon your objection to it's being a collection. You can only have valid grounds by objecting to the principle itself.

I take your vacuous assertion exactly as seriously as you take mine.

That will not do you any good.

 

[Silmarien]

Oh, are we just making vacuous, bald assertions to suit ourselves now? Ok. I can do that just as easily as you can. Watch:

You have it exactly backwards. Every so-called atheist that has ever done anything morally wrong is actually a Christian.

Eh, it's at least coherent to say that a Christian who commits a crime does not fear retribution and thus cannot really believe in God. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that an atheist who commits a crime is doing so because they're actually religious. There's no logic there at all.

I would think it very obvious that a Christian can commit a crime if they believe that God would actually approve of said crime, though. I suppose you could try to argue that they're not really Christians if they think God would approve of violence, but that doesn't make them atheists instead. They're definitely still theists.

 

[Serving Zion]

if they think God would approve of

This is really at the core of it, and you are right. It is better to not claim to believe than to lie and become as deceived as that.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I am not playing a game as you like to think it is. This is an incredibly serious matter

Then you should start behaving as such. Assertions like 'every Christian who commits a crime is secretly an atheist', are not to be taken seriously. They are to be laughed at.

There is plenty of serious discussion of moral philosophy to be had, but you are not prepared to have it if that is your starting point.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Eh, it's at least coherent to say that a Christian who commits a crime does not fear retribution and thus cannot really believe in God. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that an atheist who commits a crime is doing so because they're actually religious. There's no logic there at all.

Sure there is. You see, my construct of what it means to be 'Christian' necessarily entails the committing of crimes and atrocities, as ordered by Yahweh. Retribution comes when you don't commit them.

That's the nice thing about making assertions up out of nothing. We're limited only by our imaginations.

I would think it very obvious that a Christian can commit a crime if they believe that God would actually approve of said crime, though. I suppose you could try to argue that they're not really Christians if they think God would approve of violence, but that doesn't make them atheists instead. They're definitely still theists.

And of course, that leads to the question of how to determine the truth of one 'revelation' over another. A real problem for people who believe that is the means by which moral truths are imparted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure there is. You see, my construct of what it means to be 'Christian' necessarily entails the committing of crimes and atrocities, as ordered by Yahweh. Retribution comes when you don't commit them.

That's the nice thing about making assertions up out of nothing. We're limited only by our imaginations.

And of course, that leads to the question of how to determine the truth of one 'revelation' over another. A real problem for people who believe that is the means by which moral truths are imparted.

Personally, I have very little problem with atheists telling me that they disagree with me, or with the Bible, on this or that epistemological or moral issue. What I do have a problem with is when they articulate their respective positions in ways that seem to exhibit absolutist semantic overtones, as if their positions are virtually unquestionable and/or unassailable. In my view, much if not most of what is in each individual person's human perspective (as it is in toto for each individual) is open to scrutiny-------even my perspective, as long as we can apply this scrutiny bilaterally, of course.

Then again, I have the same problem with fellow Christians who try to assert that their own theological views (or interpretations of the Bible, more typically) are also absolute, or even yet "evident" to all (ala a misapplication, I think, of an epistemological little something that Paul the Apostle said ... ).

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Personally, I have very little problem with atheists telling me that they disagree with me, or with the Bible, on this or that epistemological or moral issue. What I do have a problem with is when they articulate their position in ways that seems to exhibit absolutist semantic overtones, as if their positions are virtually unquestionable and/or unassailable. In my view, much if not most of what is in each individual person's human perspective (as it is in toto for each individual) is open to scrutiny-------even my perspective, as long as we can apply this scrutiny bilaterally, of course.

I agree. Nothing should be safe from scrutiny.

Then again, I have the same problem with fellow Christians who try to assert that their own theological views (or interpretations of the Bible, more typically) are also absolute, or even yet "evident" to all (ala a misapplication, I think, of an epistemological little something that Paul the Apostle said ... ).

I assume you mean Romans 1. That's my favorite apologetic - 'everyone already knows I'm right'.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree. Nothing should be safe from scrutiny.

I assume you mean Romans 1. That's my favorite apologetic - 'everyone already knows I'm right'.

Yes, that one. Personally, I'd have to agree with atheists, along with others who are also skeptically prone, that Paul's epistemological meaning in Romans 1 isn't something that is referentially "just as clear as day."

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yes, that one. Personally, I'd have to agree with atheists, along with others who are also skeptically prone, that Paul's epistemological meaning in Romans 1 isn't something that is referentially "just as clear as day."

That's not how I respond to Romans 1. I invite the interpretation that says 'everyone knows Yahweh exists', held to most commonly by presuppositional apologists. It is amusingly self-defeating.

All I have to do to refute the claim is be aware of at least one person who doesn't 'know Yahweh exists'. It happens that I am aware of one such person - me. As such, I can know for certain that the claim of Romans 1 is false, and the Bible can not be the 'perfect word of god'.

I like when apologists saw their own legs off from the outset.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's not how I respond to Romans 1. I invite the interpretation that says 'everyone knows Yahweh exists', held to most commonly by presuppositional apologists. It is amusingly self-defeating.

Well, of course you do. Because that is the ploy that hard-line anti-theistic atheists, who have a grudge, have to hold to in order to say, "Hey, this (read: supposedly inerrant, infallible, inspired, can't be wrong) bible of yours is self-defeating!"

Yeah, I don't have to hold to that type of epistemological holdover from Fundamentalism. To do so would be to give the Fundamentalists the final word on the Bible, and the thing is, they've never really had it to begin with. But, I suppose it's always fun for atheists to pre-suppose the Fundamentalist position since it's what has rubbed them the wrong way so deeply for so long. Better to assume that Fundamentalism actually 'does' represent Christianity at its 'best'; and by doing so it also makes it that much easier to come down on when jumping off of the bandwagon of faith. Right?

All I have to do to refute the claim is be aware of at least one person who doesn't 'know Yahweh exists'. It happens that I am aware of one such person - me. As such, I can know for certain that the claim of Romans 1 is false, and the Bible can not be the 'perfect word of god'.

I like when apologists saw their own legs off from the outset.

...Yeah, I like that when atheists do the same thing, as well as when Fundamentalists do it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Well, of course you do. Because that is the ploy that hard-line anti-theistic atheists, who have a grudge, have to hold to in order to say, "Hey, this (read: supposedly inerrant, infallible, inspired, can't be wrong) bible of yours is self-defeating!"

I don't have to hold to anything. It's not my book, and I didn't make up the interpretation. All I have to do is respond to it, when it is given. And if it's not, there is nothing to respond to, and I don't ask anyone to answer for it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't have to hold to anything. It's not my book, and I didn't make up the interpretation. All I have to do is respond to it, when it is given. And if it's not, there is nothing to respond to, and I don't ask anyone to answer for it.

What if it doesn't mean what we think it means, given today's understanding of the world? I mean, it's NOT like Jews of Paul's time actually thought about the nature of the world around us in the same way we do today.

It's funny, though, I can commiserate with skeptics to some extent since I've actually had a Christian or two try to make that very assertion: i.e. "people (even Jewish people) have never changed; they perceived right and wrong, good and evil, truth and error back then..............just like they do today!" A statement to which I give a quiet moment of reflection, and a very hardy roll of the eyes with a firm *sigh.*

 

[Serving Zion]

There is plenty of serious discussion of moral philosophy to be had, but you are not prepared to have it if that is your starting point.

Before I address the other part of your post, I see an easy opportunity for agreement in what you have said here. As it regards the starting point, I do have a confession to make, that I didn't realise it's significance at first but now I do:

In post #40, the post that you have objected to, I wrote that "the so-called Christians who are said to have done the objectionable crimes, are in fact atheists", whereas when I wrote that I had first written the expression "heinous crimes" - but I did not feel comfortable saying that, because it is extreme language, so I softened my language as I thought was kinder to the audience.

If you will permit that change of wording, it has potential for you to see why I have said what I have said and then you could much easier agree. But, I recognise of course that it might not necessarily resolve your objection, because there is as you have said, plenty of serious discussion of moral philosophy to be had. So if you do wish to continue the discussion, please accept this amendment to the starting point and then I will press on with hope that we could uncover some very interesting findings in terms of how far theism can actually be called Christian when moral principles are a means of determining whether a so-called Christian is in fact Christian. Let me know how you would like to proceed.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Before I address the other part of your post, I see an easy opportunity for agreement in what you have said here. As it regards the starting point, I do have a confession to make, that I didn't realise it's significance at first but now I do:

In post #40, the post that you have objected to, I wrote that "the so-called Christians who are said to have done the objectionable crimes, are in fact atheists", whereas when I wrote that I had first written the expression "heinous crimes" - but I did not feel comfortable saying that, because it is extreme language, so I softened my language as I thought was kinder to the audience.

If you will permit that change of wording, it has potential for you to see why I have said what I have said and then you could much easier agree. But, I recognise of course that it might not necessarily resolve your objection, because there is as you have said, plenty of serious discussion of moral philosophy to be had. So if you do wish to continue the discussion, please accept this amendment to the starting point and then I will press on with hope that we could uncover some very interesting findings in terms of how far theism can actually be called Christian when moral principles are a means of determining whether a so-called Christian is in fact Christian. Let me know how you would like to proceed.

As an American, most of the people I know are Christian. So if I were to be assaulted, it would most likely be by a Christian. Well, that's assuming random distribution of crime among the religious spectrum; the reality is that Christians are over-represented in jails and prisons, so I'm all the more likely to be assaulted by a Christian.

But the OP divides Christianity into Real Christians® and Fake Christians. And Real Christians® would never commit a heinous crime.

But what is a Fake Christian, really? A social person who pretends to be a Christian at the Thanksgiving dinner table does so to avoid confrontation. Fake Christians are probably the least likely of these three categories to commit heinous crimes. Real Christians®, on the other hand, are more likely than the others to commit heinous crimes:

Imagine a cafeteria line or a grocery store. Imagine further that you're the type of person who wants to resist the temptation of junk food. They will hit you hard with the sweets right at the start of the line or right when you enter the store, but they know you won't fall for it. But they also know that you'll give yourself a pat on the back for resisting the temptation, and will then "reward" yourself later with an impulse item at the end of the line or at the checkout line. Similarly, a Real Christian® who is constantly avoiding the temptation to sin will eventually give way in grand fashion.

 

[variant]

But there could be free will and no evil, so they aren't intrinsically linked.

This depends on how you define evil.

If you define evil as differing from Gods opinions, intentions, or plan then there can be no free will if there is no evil.

 

[variant]

I think Hitchens may have quote him, but the original is Steven Weinberg

ETA source: Steven Weinberg - Wikiquote

As an atheist, I disagree with Steven Weinberg.

Everyone likes to think themselves a good person, and even the worst people will readily come up with rationalizations for their bad behavior and think themselves the hero and the good.

This is a common feature of all humanity and does not require religion in any way shape or form. Sure people often do use religion to rationalize behavior they should know is bad, but it isn't the only way to do that.