Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2014, 09:23 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(07-12-2014 09:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-12-2014 08:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  That shows that either you do not understand the meaning of the word 'benevolent' or you are simply irrational.

Problem solved. Drinking Beverage

No, I perfectly understand how you and other atheists want to define benevolence, so that it means not allowing pointless suffering to exist. But the conundrum is, that theists and believers have a different understanding, and definition, that doesn't hold allowing pointless suffering to negative it.

The problem is you dishonestly trying to redefine benevolence to suit your agenda.

No sane person understands benevolence to include pointless suffering.

Quote:The very idea of benevolence, presupposes our own moral outlooks and perspectives. Someone who views morality in terms of consequentialism, and someone who views morality along the lines of virtue ethics, deontology etc.. will have a different understanding of the meaning of benevolence, omnibenevolence, just like they would on what makes an act moral.

You should use a different word. Make something up, like 'hemisemidemibenevolence'.

Quote:Just like you might have a different definition of what a model citizen would be, a model soldier, etc... while others who might not share your particular moral or political ideologies will likely disagree.

It's not about ideology, per se. It's about the mealy-mouthed, agenda driven, dishonest twisting of words.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2014, 09:23 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2014 12:24 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(07-12-2014 09:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, I perfectly understand how you and other atheists want to define benevolence, so that it means not allowing pointless suffering to exist. But the conundrum is, that theists and believers have a different understanding, and definition, that doesn't hold allowing pointless suffering to negative it.

The very idea of benevolence, presupposes our own moral outlooks and perspectives. Someone who views morality in terms of consequentialism, and someone who views morality along the lines of virtue ethics, deontology etc.. will have a different understanding of the meaning of benevolence, omnibenevolence, just like they would on what makes an act moral.

Just like you might have a different definition of what a model citizen would be, a model soldier, etc... while others who might not share your particular moral or political ideologies will likely disagree.


It's "negate it".... you didn't graduate from 8th Grade, did you ?
Small disagreements over the definition of words are totally irrelevant you slimy rationalizing retard. We generally understand what the phrase "model citizen" ESSENTIALLY means, when that phrase is used in this culture. There may be MINOR disagreements about small things, but the generally accepted meaning is well know for the idiom. IF as you say there are "different perspectives" then there are no "absolute" moral values, are there ? There is NO "disagreement" on whether it's "benevolent" for children to suffer, you intellectually dishonest lying son-of -a-bitch. You're "equivocating" all over yourself in public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
You are embarrassing yourself. It's just amazing the contortions religionists try to cook up to make the cognitive dissonances go away, or keep them at bay.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 06:53 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(07-12-2014 09:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  The problem is you dishonestly trying to redefine benevolence to suit your agenda.

lol, just because folks don't accept your definition doesn't mean they redefined it.
Believers have long understood that the existence of suffering and evil doesn't negate God's benevolence. The very nature of viewing God as benevolent, as omnibenovelent, has held this in mind. It's not like they attributed this to God, and only later discovered that suffering exists in the world, and then they had to go back and redefine it, lol.

Quote:No sane person understands benevolence to include pointless suffering.

Yes, if by sane people, you mean a handful of atheists, and excluding the billions of believers, christians, hindu, muslim, and otherwise, who believe in a benevolent God,

Quote:You should use a different word. Make something up, like 'hemisemidemibenevolence'.

Nah, I'll stick we'll benevolence.

Quote:It's not about ideology, per se. It's about the mealy-mouthed, agenda driven, dishonest twisting of words.

It's all about ideology, our presuppositional beliefs, and it's your own agenda driven dishonesty that keeps you from acknowledging this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 07:24 AM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2014 07:30 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(07-12-2014 09:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We generally understand what the phrase "model citizen" ESSENTIALLY means, when that phrase is used in this culture.

Yet, if you take a very liberal and very conservative perspective there likely will be quite a number of distinctions between each model, such as one might view a model citizen as one who is a patriot, respects and is subservient to authority, served in the military, stands for the pledge, etc... Or in other words the model citizen for a conservative will likely lean more to the right, than a liberal's model citizen.

Quote:There may be MINOR disagreements about small things, but the generally accepted meaning is well know for the idiom.

And yet, the general understanding of omnibenvolence doesn't get negated by the existence of evil, or suffering in the world. It's only a minority, such as yourself who disagree with this understanding.

Quote:IF as you say there are "different perspectives" then there are no "absolute" moral values, are there ? There is NO "disagreement" on whether it's "benevolent" for children to suffer, you intellectually dishonest lying son-of -a-bitch. You're "equivocating" all over yourself in public.

Ah yes, that's sort of the problem right. At least you somewhat seem to understand that issue with the problem of evil, is that it requires an appeal to absolute moral values. And not just that, but that the standard painted by the critics here, is a reflection of that absolute standard. The atheist often finds himself in a tricky predicament arguing against the existence of God, while appealing to his existence.

Quote:You are embarrassing yourself. It's just amazing the contortions religionists try to cook up to make the cognitive dissonances go away, or keep them at bay.

I haven't done any contortions, in fact I merely pointed out something that should be quite obvious, a difference in definitions among believers and certain atheists on what benevolence requires. I haven't rejected any competing evidence for any actual dissonance to take place. I merely rejected the personal preferences, the flavor of the day, of my opponents.

In fact this dissonance seems to belong to my opponents, who typically reject moral absolutes, are moral relativists, and it's cognitive dissonance that doesn't allow them to see how this is a problem when unbelievers resort to the problem of evil.

So it appears like you and your buddies here are embarrassing themselves.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 07:35 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(08-12-2014 07:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact this dissonance seems to belong to my opponents, who typically reject moral absolutes, are moral relativists, and it's cognitive dissonance that doesn't allow them to see how this is a problem when unbelievers resort to the problem of evil.

So it appears like you and your buddies here are embarrassing themselves.

Somebody saying that they don't like to see children suffering pointlessly and expecting you too as well isn't a moral absolute; they're assuming a common, subjective, socially constructed belief that hurting kids is wrong.

Swap out the term and you've got any statement of "evil" made thus far in the thread.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you've thus far said that a definition of "benevolence" need not include wanting to stop pointless suffering. Provide that definition and see if you can do so in good conscience or shut up.

You're being an arsehole.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
08-12-2014, 07:36 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(08-12-2014 06:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:The problem is you dishonestly trying to redefine benevolence to suit your agenda.
lol, just because folks don't accept your definition doesn't mean they redefined it.
Believers have long understood that the existence of suffering and evil doesn't negate God's benevolence. The very nature of viewing God as benevolent, as omnibenovelent, has held this in mind. It's not like they attributed this to God, and only later discovered that suffering exists in the world, and then they had to go back and redefine it, lol.

Quote:No sane person understands benevolence to include pointless suffering.

Yes, if by sane people, you mean a handful of atheists, and excluding the billions of believers, christians, hindu, muslim, and otherwise, who believe in a benevolent God,

The point was that the existence of a benevolent god is incompatible with pointless suffering and you responded with a strawman and an argument from popularity. Are fallacies all you have to offer?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
08-12-2014, 08:09 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(08-12-2014 07:35 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 07:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact this dissonance seems to belong to my opponents, who typically reject moral absolutes, are moral relativists, and it's cognitive dissonance that doesn't allow them to see how this is a problem when unbelievers resort to the problem of evil.

So it appears like you and your buddies here are embarrassing themselves.

Somebody saying that they don't like to see children suffering pointlessly and expecting you too as well isn't a moral absolute; they're assuming a common, subjective, socially constructed belief that hurting kids is wrong.

Swap out the term and you've got any statement of "evil" made thus far in the thread.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you've thus far said that a definition of "benevolence" need not include wanting to stop pointless suffering. Provide that definition and see if you can do so in good conscience or shut up.

You're being an arsehole.

Yep, the commonly accepted definition of benevolence is violated by this deity, if it isn't, then a definition needs to be forthcoming or is this a fancy way for Tomasia to assert a god that has "mysterious ways"?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 08:10 AM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2014 08:18 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(08-12-2014 07:36 AM)unfogged Wrote:  The point was that the existence of a benevolent god is incompatible with pointless suffering and you responded with a strawman and an argument from popularity. Are fallacies all you have to offer?

Let's make this simple.

You believe that pointless suffering is incompatible with a benevolent god.

A theist believes it's not incompatible.

How is the theist wrong? Is he wrong because he doesn't agree with your definition of benevolence? Is he wrong, because there is some absolute moral standard, in which these things would be incompatible? Improper grammar? Or what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 08:16 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(08-12-2014 08:09 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Yep, the commonly accepted definition of benevolence is violated by this deity,

You keep asserting it's the commonly accepted definition, but it's not. It's the accepted definition by those who argue for the problem of evil, who are a minority. The common understanding of benevolence isn't negated by the existence of pointless suffering.

But even so, what is the argument, that the theist is wrong to refer to God as benevolent, because of improper grammar?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 08:26 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(08-12-2014 08:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You believe that pointless suffering is incompatible with a benevolent god.

A theist believes it's not incompatible.

How is the theist wrong? Is he wrong because he doesn't agree with your definition of benevolence? Is he wrong, because there is some absolute moral standard, in which these things would be incompatible? Or what?

Any entity that has the power to relieve pointless suffering but chooses not to do so can't reasonably be described as benevolent by any commonly accepted definition. It does not help to claim that it is constrained in any way because this is the entity that supposedly created the system and defined the rules.

The theist is wrong because they have no logically consistent argument for calling their god benevolent if it allows pointless suffering.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: