Does atheism solve the problem of evil?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-11-2013, 10:13 AM
RE: Does atheism solve the problem of evil?
(24-11-2013 03:43 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Evil comes from Lucifer the fallen angel.

I thought it came from Loki being a douuuuuche.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Question's post
24-11-2013, 03:39 PM
RE: Does atheism solve the problem of evil?
(24-11-2013 03:06 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 02:49 PM)chandlerklebs Wrote:  You people are right. I would need to define evil before I could even present a problem of evil.

I suppose it's my own opinion but I think of evil as something which is directly done to hurt another person against their will such as child molestation or murder. I reject the idea of "sin" but I just feel things are sometimes still wrong.

And since I reject a god that is omnipotent or omniscient, does that make me an atheist?

Ugh. Definitions of atheism. There's about half a dozen different ones floating around out there, fairly closely related but with some important distinctions. What you just said might arguably qualify you under one of the definitions, but not the rest and not the most popular. The typical definitions in use by those who identify as atheists are "don't believe in any sort of god", and "don't believe in a theistic sort of god" (meaning a person-entity with supernatural powers over the world EDIT: who actively uses them to intervene in the world). (Also popular are the "believe it doesn't exist" versions of these "don't believe it exists" definitions.) Rejection of the specific notions of omnipotence and omniscience doesn't qualify for any of these more common definitions.

And ugh, definitions of evil. Personally, I don't think definitions (such as the meaning of the word evil) should be a matter of opinion. Semantic definitions are not absolute truth. They are societal conventions adopted as tools to facilitate communication, by establishing clear representations of a potentially complex concepts by relatively simple sequence of sounds or written letters. (Or motions, for ASL. Phew, does that cover it? Probably not.) Whether you have the "right" definition depends on whether that definition conforms to common usage. Are you using the word in the same way most people think of it? If not, then it fails as a tool for communication, because people won't recognize the concept you are trying to relate when you use it. This is especially true with hotly-debated words such as "evil". If no one agrees on what a word like "evil" (or, say, "God") means, then it fails in its role as a convention for relating an underlying concept. We should discard such words in favor of more communicative words or phrasings, or at the very least effect a field repair by seeking to establish working definitions from conversation to conversation. The whole point of language and semantics is to facilitate the exchange of underlying ideas, not to get bogged down in squabbling or philosophizing over what this word means. I swear, half of philosophy is nothing more than arguing definitions. "What is justice? What is evil?" THEY'RE WORDS! If you two agree on what concepts they represent, use them! If not, forget them and find some other way of communicating about the concepts! Don't spend a three hour debate arguing over which dictionary definition you're using!

.....

[retroactive rant warning]

EDIT: Fine, words are also useful in framing the problems, which is of rhetorical and analytical value, and also in establishing individual and group identity.

I am very frustrated by the fact that these words have different meanings to different people. Because of it, I really don't know whether I can say for sure I believe in god when I don't know what the word "god" means.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2013, 03:45 PM
RE: Does atheism solve the problem of evil?
(24-11-2013 03:39 PM)chandlerklebs Wrote:  I am very frustrated by the fact that these words have different meanings to different people. Because of it, I really don't know whether I can say for sure I believe in god when I don't know what the word "god" means.

I think most people think of things like zeus, ra, yahweh, etc. Other people think nature, universe, etc. It's also a reason many people begin with, "What do you define as a god?" Thumbsup

But that's good, it makes you think.

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2013, 03:56 PM
RE: Does atheism solve the problem of evil?
(24-11-2013 03:39 PM)chandlerklebs Wrote:  
(24-11-2013 03:06 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Ugh. Definitions of atheism. There's about half a dozen different ones floating around out there, fairly closely related but with some important distinctions. What you just said might arguably qualify you under one of the definitions, but not the rest and not the most popular. The typical definitions in use by those who identify as atheists are "don't believe in any sort of god", and "don't believe in a theistic sort of god" (meaning a person-entity with supernatural powers over the world EDIT: who actively uses them to intervene in the world). (Also popular are the "believe it doesn't exist" versions of these "don't believe it exists" definitions.) Rejection of the specific notions of omnipotence and omniscience doesn't qualify for any of these more common definitions.

And ugh, definitions of evil. Personally, I don't think definitions (such as the meaning of the word evil) should be a matter of opinion. Semantic definitions are not absolute truth. They are societal conventions adopted as tools to facilitate communication, by establishing clear representations of a potentially complex concepts by relatively simple sequence of sounds or written letters. (Or motions, for ASL. Phew, does that cover it? Probably not.) Whether you have the "right" definition depends on whether that definition conforms to common usage. Are you using the word in the same way most people think of it? If not, then it fails as a tool for communication, because people won't recognize the concept you are trying to relate when you use it. This is especially true with hotly-debated words such as "evil". If no one agrees on what a word like "evil" (or, say, "God") means, then it fails in its role as a convention for relating an underlying concept. We should discard such words in favor of more communicative words or phrasings, or at the very least effect a field repair by seeking to establish working definitions from conversation to conversation. The whole point of language and semantics is to facilitate the exchange of underlying ideas, not to get bogged down in squabbling or philosophizing over what this word means. I swear, half of philosophy is nothing more than arguing definitions. "What is justice? What is evil?" THEY'RE WORDS! If you two agree on what concepts they represent, use them! If not, forget them and find some other way of communicating about the concepts! Don't spend a three hour debate arguing over which dictionary definition you're using!

.....

[retroactive rant warning]

EDIT: Fine, words are also useful in framing the problems, which is of rhetorical and analytical value, and also in establishing individual and group identity.

I am very frustrated by the fact that these words have different meanings to different people. Because of it, I really don't know whether I can say for sure I believe in god when I don't know what the word "god" means.

Ask 50 random people what god is to them you get 50 different answers. Maybe more since some don't even hold to just one answer. For me, god is just another metaphor for a trancendent mystery. You just have to ask yourself if you believe in a literal god as that is actually somewhere in heaven (whatever that is) controlling everything or is he more of a representation of something else entirely. Some say god is everything, the pantheistic approach. I wonder if this is why they say "personal god" is it a god born from someones personality?

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: