The Problem of Evil

[Archaeopteryx]

What you are saying is that you did more bad than good, and that excuses you. But who is the judge that you did more bad more than good? Yourself?

It appears your view of justice is egocentric. I am not saying that as an insult, but a plain statement of fact.

Would you prefer it that Dave deified his morality so that his actions become the fulfilment of "God's will"? Talk about egocentric.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Would you prefer it that Dave deified his morality so that his actions become the fulfilment of "God's will"? Talk about egocentric.

We would prefer him to come to terms with the fact that his worldview is devoid of any grounds for objective moral values and duties.

We would prefer him to stop talking as if it did and come to terms with the fact that everyday, he betrays his beliefs and lives like every other theist who believes certain things are really wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We would prefer him to come to terms with the fact that his worldview is devoid of any grounds for objective moral values and duties.

We would prefer him to stop talking as if it did and come to terms with the fact that everyday, he betrays his beliefs and lives like every other theist who believes certain things are really wrong.

Theology is not a prerequisite for morality. We are able to say that certain things are wrong without invoking the supernatural. Whether or not moral statements are objective or subjective is a matter of debate. Merely inserting the supernatural doesn't alleviate the problem, and it adds its own problems as well.

 

[Dave Ellis]

God's assessment that all our "righteousness" is as filthy rags.

God's assessment that there is none who is good, no not one.

There is none who seeks after God, they have altogether become corrupt.

And again, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

That is our justification.

Why?

Because we are Christians not followers of Dave Ellis.

Thank you for the further backing of my point that Christianity works to breed guilt in people.

That aside, how do you know what you're saying is true? Did god come down and tell you himself?

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is one of the perverse things about religious morality. It shifts the focus of morality from the wellbeing of humans and centres it instead on the purported desires of a deity.

There is no such thing as religious morality.

 

[Dave Ellis]

We would prefer him to come to terms with the fact that his worldview is devoid of any grounds for objective moral values and duties.

We would prefer him to stop talking as if it did and come to terms with the fact that everyday, he betrays his beliefs and lives like every other theist who believes certain things are really wrong.

On the contrary, my morality is grounded solidly in objectivity. My morality is based on the objective consequences of given actions in a given scenario.

The irony is that what christians call objective morality is nothing of the sort. If you believe god created morality, then you are arguing for a subjective moral system. The system by definition would be based upon god's subjective decrees. In order for something to be objective it would have to be true independent of anyone's opinion, including your gods.

 

[abacabb3]

Because if say, 95% of the things you do are good and the other 5% are bad, it's only reasonable to call that person good.

By your standards, the passing grade is 50% then. Why can't it be 65%? Of 99%? Or a perfect score? Who decides that?

What's your justification for saying otherwise?

I think your criteria, ultimately, is arbitrary. My standard for goodness is absolute perfection and you can't say my standard is any worse than yours, and mine is just as arbitrary.

 

[abacabb3]

This is one of the perverse things about religious morality. It shifts the focus of morality from the wellbeing of humans and centres it instead on the purported desires of a deity.

That's the difference of an anthropocentric view of morality and a Theocentric view. Do you have absolute proof one is true over the other?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's the difference of an anthropocentric view of morality and a Theocentric view. Do you have absolute proof one is true over the other?

Absolute proof? No. But I see no reason to consider a theocentric morality at all. It gets us nowhere and may even set us back. By shifting the focus of morality to the purported desires of a deity, it no longer matters whether an action causes harm to someone. All that matters is that a deity approves of it, regardless of whatever harm may follow. That isn't so much morality as it is obedience to a divine despot. It gets worse though, because those claiming to know the desires of the deity cannot even demonstrate that they possess such knowledge.

 

[Dave Ellis]

By your standards, the passing grade is 50% then. Why can't it be 65%? Of 99%? Or a perfect score? Who decides that?

I never said anything about a "passing grade". I said I have done many more good things than bad, so I am more good than bad.

I think your criteria, ultimately, is arbitrary. My standard for goodness is absolute perfection and you can't say my standard is any worse than yours, and mine is just as arbitrary.

Not at all, I have a rational basis for my criteria. If someone does a lot of great work for people, and does very little wrong, it's not reasonable to call that person evil because he messed up once or twice.

For example, say you go to a mechanic to fix your car for 20 years, and for those 20 years he always perfectly solves the problem with your car. Then one time you take your car in and he makes a mistake, but then fixes it when you take it back. Under your criteria you would then have to call that mechanic a terrible mechanic. It's just not a reasonable stance, any reasonable person would call that guy a great mechanic.

I think the only reason you hold to your current view is due to the poison that your religion has inflicted upon your mind. The self hatred and self loathing propagated by Christianity is designed to keep you returning to church. It's nothing more than malevolent brainwashing, and it's utterly disgusting for any moral person. I honestly hope you see through the indoctrination that has been forced upon you.

 

[abacabb3]

Absolute proof? No. But I see no reason to consider a theocentric morality at all.

I see no reason to consider anthropocentric morality being that there are so many other things other that sentient beings out there.

It gets us nowhere and may even set us back. By shifting the focus of morality to the purported desires of a deity, it no longer matters whether an action causes harm to someone.

In Theocentric morality, yes, that is essentially the case.

 

[abacabb3]

I never said anything about a "passing grade". I said I have done many more good things than bad, so I am more good than bad.

A presupposition in your view is that doing one bad thing essentially cancels out one good thing. So, if I murder someone, as long as I save someone else from being murdered, I am now morally neutral. Then, if I help an old lady cross the street, I just became slightly morally good.

Unless you agree with the preceding, then we must admit that bad acts are not always negated by equivalent good acts.

Not at all, I have a rational basis for my criteria.

No, it is indeed arbitrary as I have showed above.

If someone does a lot of great work for people, and does very little wrong, it's not reasonable to call that person evil because he messed up once or twice.

In my personal moral view, it is. Murdering one or two people, but then feeling bad about it and then becoming a fireman and saving dozens of peoples lives does not pay for it back.

I think the only reason you hold to your current view is due to the poison that your religion has inflicted upon your mind.

Guilty as charged, I have freed myself from my man-made religion and have seen its logical constraints.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I see no reason to consider anthropocentric morality being that there are so many other things other that sentient beings out there.


In Theocentric morality, yes, that is essentially the case.

But, the supposed desires of said deity would still be interpreted by people, which creates potential misunderstandings an distortion. It would still essentially be an anthropocentric morality, it would just have a non human reference. A reference which you have to also question because it genuinely might not even exist.

 

[abacabb3]

But then it would not be true morality, it would be distorted by people. Theists get around this by believing in revealed truth. In Islam, for example, God literally speaks Arabic and Allah breathed out the Quran through the Angel Gabriel, to Muhammad, who had a bunch of people memorize it until under the Caliph Uthman it was written down. So, according to Muslims, morality derived from the Quran would be unadulterated truth straight from the mouth of the deity.

Whether man correctly understands Allah's revelation is a different matter.

 

[Dave Ellis]

A presupposition in your view is that doing one bad thing essentially cancels out one good thing. So, if I murder someone, as long as I save someone else from being murdered, I am now morally neutral. Then, if I help an old lady cross the street, I just became slightly morally good.

Unless you agree with the preceding, then we must admit that bad acts are not always negated by equivalent good acts.

No, the mistake you're making here is saving someone from being murdered is not a moral equivalent to murdering someone. It's not a matter of one bad thing cancelling out one good thing, what it comes down to is that there are various degrees of how good or how bad a thing is.

Looking at the overall actions a person does over the span of their lifetime will give you an understanding of how good a person that person is. If they have a long history of performing minor or major good acts for people, but have a couple blemishes on their record, you would still call that person a good person.

In my personal moral view, it is. Murdering one or two people, but then feeling bad about it and then becoming a fireman and saving dozens of peoples lives does not pay for it back.

I agree with you.

Guilty as charged, I have freed myself from my man-made religion and have seen its logical constraints.

You mean you've rejected Christianity?

 

[abacabb3]

No, the mistake you're making here is saving someone from being murdered is not a moral equivalent to murdering someone.

Who says? Stealing a home run is just as good as hitting one for the team, what's the difference? Looks like your "objective standards" are rroding into arbitrary subjectivity.

It's not a matter of one bad thing cancelling out one good thing, what it comes down to is that there are various degrees of how good or how bad a thing is.

What unit of measurement can we use to quantify these degrees?

You mean you've rejected Christianity?

True religion is the only one not made up by man

 

[Dave Ellis]

Who says? Stealing a home run is just as good as hitting one for the team, what's the difference? Looks like your "objective standards" are rroding into arbitrary subjectivity.

We aren't talking about home runs, we are talking about murder. If all you can come back with are red herrings, I think I've proven my point enough.

What unit of measurement can we use to quantify these degrees?

Objective consequences. We can examine exactly what harm has been done, or we can examine what good has been done.

True religion is the only one not made up by man

All religions are made up by man.

 

[rick357]

This is one of the perverse things about religious morality. It shifts the focus of morality from the wellbeing of humans and centres it instead on the purported desires of a deity.

Jesus says plainly that by loving and honoring God and your fellow man you will have done all that is required.
*[[Mar 12:29-31]] TS1998*
%v 29% And יהושע answered him, “The first of all the commands is, ‘Hear, O Yisra’ĕl, יהוה our Elohim, יהוה is one.
%v 30% ‘And you shall love יהוה your Elohim with all your heart, and with all your being, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first command.
%v 31% “And the second, like it, is this, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other command greater than these.”

What defines good or evil is not the act but the motive....shared life is beneficial to the individual and all around him...self life is destructive to the individual and all around him.....so your statment that it is about Gods benefit and not mans is 180° from what God desires...He desires to share his life with you as you share yours with him and your fellow man...selfish acts and motives even if you are helping the homeless lead to hurt and your own destruction for no matter how many people are around, you will always be lonely in that mode.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I see no reason to consider anthropocentric morality being that there are so many other things other that sentient beings out there.

Yes, there are other things, like rocks, but morality does not concern them. It concerns us.

In Theocentric morality, yes, that is essentially the case.

Which is why it holds us back.

 

[FireDragon76]

Already solved:

Debating atheists on the “Problem of Evil” | Reformed Christian Theology

If you have new objections as to why evil somehow impugns the anture of God, get back to me.

Those arguments don't refute the Problem of Evil. Arguing by attacking objections but giving no particular reason to believe ones assertions is poor debating.

In a world of seemingly gratuitous evil, for instance, children dying of cancer, believing in an all-loving God is far from obvious unless you willfully blind yourself to suffering.