problem of evil and suffering
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2015, 09:11 AM
RE: problem of evil and suffering
(27-08-2015 09:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 08:37 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The motivation behind proselytizing is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of a given set of religious beliefs. You keep dancing around my question: Why is Christianity (and specifically, "born again" Christianity) any more likely to be "true" than Islam or any other religion? The answer is not "proselytization" and it's not "we have a book" (they "have a book" too). They are all just as convinced that they are right as you are. What makes you special? I would prefer a rational justification -- "feels" don't carry much weight.

The motivation behind proselytizing is irrelevant to his question.
"Why are you any less likely to be mistaken than they are? You didn't really answer the question. Proselytization has nothing to do with it."

How about you actually address that?

Yabut, why answer a difficult question when you can sidestep it?Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 10:47 AM
RE: problem of evil and suffering
(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Are you making sincere replies or just joking? I honestly don't know because you keep saying things without addressing my arguments:

I am directly addressing your arguments.

I cannot, however, force you to understand the reply.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:Let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are correct, and without a god to hand them down, the rules of morality must necessarily be entirely arbitrary and you have lost your ability to condemn the rapist.

For the "sake of argument" is right because neither rational Christians nor rational atheists find human morality "arbitrary".

A tip: do not tell your opponent what their position is, because you will inevitably be wrong. As you are here.

Human morality is entirely arbitrary. All morality is arbitrary. That it has formed, in its most common state, due to social and evolutionary pressures does not change this fact.

There is no universal law of morality. There is no way to calculate the moral rightness of an action. In the end, it's all just picking values out of a hat.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It isn't arbitrary to say rape is wrong, it is a moral imperative.

No, it isn't.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm asking whether you will agree that there are some absolute moral values.

I do not.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:Why would one man make the superhuman effort to code the entirety of Dwarf Fortress without any assistance whatsoever?

Again, you are not attempting to address what I said.

Well, yes, actually. I am.

You just missed the point entirely, as per usual.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Why? Would you go to "superhuman" efforts without telling anyone what you did or why you did it? The Bible codes are therefore more than merely compelling or mysterious.

They really aren't.

This isn't an argument. This is just you saying "personally, I think it's quite strange and therefore means something", without actually justifying why it's strange (as both the code and the authorship issues are settled against you) or attempting to explain what it might mean. You're just waving your hands in the general direction of an idea and making spooky noises, hoping people will be convinced by this.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:Yes, but if I bet on Islam, I get seventy-two virgins in the deal.

I'd prefer seventy-two extremely experienced twentysomethings and some alcohol, I suppose, but as it's the only option available, I'll take what I can get.

Being flippant is not helpful here, either

No. But neither is your being serious. I see no need to construct an actual rebuttal to something so devoid of merit.

Pascal's wager is not an argument. It is literally just saying "well what if you're wrong, yeah, then won't you be sorry huh?"

Well, yes. I'll also be quite sorry if I turn out to be wrong about Azathoth. In fact, I'd be rather sorrier about Azathoth than I would about your god.

The point, which again you seem to have missed, is that no one cares about Pascal's wager.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Your "quick Google search" would further reveal the truth of what I'm saying--that the Christian God above all other gods and religions proselytizes

Possibly true.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  and that Christians are motivated by something numinous

Completely unsupported.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 12:44 PM
RE: problem of evil and suffering
(27-08-2015 10:47 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Human morality is entirely arbitrary. All morality is arbitrary. That it has formed, in its most common state, due to social and evolutionary pressures does not change this fact.

There is no universal law of morality. There is no way to calculate the moral rightness of an action. In the end, it's all just picking values out of a hat.

I'm going to quibble with that.

Evolution has given us some rudiments (e.g. empathy) that channel and limit what human societies will come up with for morality. There are some things (unwarranted killing, theft, etc.) that are so common to societies that people mistake them for absolute.

It's just that evolution is not arbitrary; the products of evolution need to survive and the attributes that aid that are whatever works.
What shows up may be considered arbitrary, but what persists is not.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-08-2015, 12:56 PM
RE: problem of evil and suffering
(27-08-2015 09:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 08:37 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The motivation behind proselytizing is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of a given set of religious beliefs. You keep dancing around my question: Why is Christianity (and specifically, "born again" Christianity) any more likely to be "true" than Islam or any other religion? The answer is not "proselytization" and it's not "we have a book" (they "have a book" too). They are all just as convinced that they are right as you are. What makes you special? I would prefer a rational justification -- "feels" don't carry much weight.

The motivation behind proselytizing is irrelevant to his question.
"Why are you any less likely to be mistaken than they are? You didn't really answer the question. Proselytization has nothing to do with it."

How about you actually address that?

You don't already know what I might say? You cannot guess?

* I have the truth

* Jesus rose from the dead, unlike other religious leaders

* Atheists every day at TTA are living witnesses that what the Bible has to say about the unrighteous is utterly true

* The Bible has fulfilled prophecies within, proven by external data

* Etc.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: problem of evil and suffering
(27-08-2015 10:47 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Are you making sincere replies or just joking? I honestly don't know because you keep saying things without addressing my arguments:

I am directly addressing your arguments.

I cannot, however, force you to understand the reply.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  For the "sake of argument" is right because neither rational Christians nor rational atheists find human morality "arbitrary".

A tip: do not tell your opponent what their position is, because you will inevitably be wrong. As you are here.

Human morality is entirely arbitrary. All morality is arbitrary. That it has formed, in its most common state, due to social and evolutionary pressures does not change this fact.

There is no universal law of morality. There is no way to calculate the moral rightness of an action. In the end, it's all just picking values out of a hat.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It isn't arbitrary to say rape is wrong, it is a moral imperative.

No, it isn't.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm asking whether you will agree that there are some absolute moral values.

I do not.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Again, you are not attempting to address what I said.

Well, yes, actually. I am.

You just missed the point entirely, as per usual.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Why? Would you go to "superhuman" efforts without telling anyone what you did or why you did it? The Bible codes are therefore more than merely compelling or mysterious.

They really aren't.

This isn't an argument. This is just you saying "personally, I think it's quite strange and therefore means something", without actually justifying why it's strange (as both the code and the authorship issues are settled against you) or attempting to explain what it might mean. You're just waving your hands in the general direction of an idea and making spooky noises, hoping people will be convinced by this.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Being flippant is not helpful here, either

No. But neither is your being serious. I see no need to construct an actual rebuttal to something so devoid of merit.

Pascal's wager is not an argument. It is literally just saying "well what if you're wrong, yeah, then won't you be sorry huh?"

Well, yes. I'll also be quite sorry if I turn out to be wrong about Azathoth. In fact, I'd be rather sorrier about Azathoth than I would about your god.

The point, which again you seem to have missed, is that no one cares about Pascal's wager.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Your "quick Google search" would further reveal the truth of what I'm saying--that the Christian God above all other gods and religions proselytizes

Possibly true.

(27-08-2015 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  and that Christians are motivated by something numinous

Completely unsupported.

A tip: Do tell your opponent what your position is, if you want to be accused of honesty and forthrightness. Let me select the one area where you began to extend a position rather than a "nope, wrong, sorry" which is as useless in a formal debate to persuade your listeners as any debate tactic:

Human morality is entirely arbitrary. All morality is arbitrary. That it has formed, in its most common state, due to social and evolutionary pressures does not change this fact.

Quote:Human morality is entirely arbitrary. All morality is arbitrary. That it has formed, in its most common state, due to social and evolutionary pressures does not change this fact. There is no universal law of morality. There is no way to calculate the moral rightness of an action. In the end, it's all just picking values out of a hat.

Please explain to us how it is that social pressures form collective morality. Please also explain how evolutionary, mechanistic processes formed morality. Please explain why there is no universal law(s) of morality how it is that most if not all cultures at all times in all periods of history have held similar moral and legal codes.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 01:34 PM
RE: problem of evil and suffering
(27-08-2015 12:56 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 09:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  The motivation behind proselytizing is irrelevant to his question.
"Why are you any less likely to be mistaken than they are? You didn't really answer the question. Proselytization has nothing to do with it."

How about you actually address that?

You don't already know what I might say? You cannot guess?

* I have the truth

Citation required. Every religion claims to have the truth. Your claim is no better than the others.

Quote:* Jesus rose from the dead, unlike other religious leaders

Citation required. This is a claim, not a fact. A claim proves nothing until you substantiate it. Good luck with that. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I don't care what the Bible says. It's a book. Anyone can write anything they like in a book.

Quote:* Atheists every day at TTA are living witnesses that what the Bible has to say about the unrighteous is utterly true

Citation required. There are some rude, foulmouthed atheists here. So what? I know some rude, foulmouthed Christians, too. "Call of the Wild" (who can be found right here on this forum) is as rude and arrogant as any atheist on the forum. And these are all relatively inconsequential "sins" anyway. If you want to talk about the serious things -- i.e., the things we send people to prison for -- well, there are far more Christians in prison than atheists. And nobody on this forum is going around killing or raping people. If the worst you can accuse us of is rudeness and profanity, so what? Grow some balls and get over it.

Quote:* The Bible has fulfilled prophecies within, proven by external data

Bullshit. I know you love your "prophecies", but every one of them was either written after the fact (real easy to make those kind of "prophecies") or is so vague as to be meaningless. The Bible is no better than Nostradamus or Jean Dixon or the daily horoscopes.

Quote:* Etc.

So, none of this is new and none of it is convincing. I've heard better arguments from Call of the Wild, and he isn't convincing either. I'm still waiting for anything that remotely resembles evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Grasshopper's post
27-08-2015, 01:57 PM
RE: problem of evil and suffering
(27-08-2015 12:56 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 09:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  The motivation behind proselytizing is irrelevant to his question.
"Why are you any less likely to be mistaken than they are? You didn't really answer the question. Proselytization has nothing to do with it."

How about you actually address that?

You don't already know what I might say? You cannot guess?

Unlike you, I don't presume to know what others think.

Quote:* I have the truth

Unsupported assertion.

Quote:* Jesus rose from the dead, unlike other religious leaders

Unsupported assertion.

Quote:* Atheists every day at TTA are living witnesses that what the Bible has to say about the unrighteous is utterly true

Go fuck yourself. Your arrogant, condescending bullshit makes our opinion of the religiously delusional utterly true.

Quote:* The Bible has fulfilled prophecies within, proven by external data

* Etc.

How many of these alleged "fulfilled prophecies" are there? Because the there has never been a convincing argument that there are any.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
27-08-2015, 06:08 PM
RE: problem of evil and suffering
(27-08-2015 12:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 10:47 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Human morality is entirely arbitrary. All morality is arbitrary. That it has formed, in its most common state, due to social and evolutionary pressures does not change this fact.

There is no universal law of morality. There is no way to calculate the moral rightness of an action. In the end, it's all just picking values out of a hat.

I'm going to quibble with that.

Evolution has given us some rudiments (e.g. empathy) that channel and limit what human societies will come up with for morality. There are some things (unwarranted killing, theft, etc.) that are so common to societies that people mistake them for absolute.

It's just that evolution is not arbitrary; the products of evolution need to survive and the attributes that aid that are whatever works.
What shows up may be considered arbitrary, but what persists is not.

No arguments from me. I made note of it in my own post, in fact, though in rather less detail - the mention of evolutionary and social pressures shaping the more common principles in play.

But, as a whole, morality remains unshaped by any sort of guiding hand or law. It is a byproduct of pack behaviors becoming molded into the species. I use "arbitrary", in this case, to indicate that it isn't in any way a law unto itself.

(27-08-2015 01:00 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  A tip: Do tell your opponent what your position is, if you want to be accused of honesty and forthrightness.

I have never hesitated to expound upon my various philosophical positions when asked, but I'm not the one who came into the thread spouting nonsense. If you'd like to question me, fine, but don't try to shift the spotlight onto another to avoid having to own up to your own failings.

(27-08-2015 01:00 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:Human morality is entirely arbitrary. All morality is arbitrary. That it has formed, in its most common state, due to social and evolutionary pressures does not change this fact. There is no universal law of morality. There is no way to calculate the moral rightness of an action. In the end, it's all just picking values out of a hat.

Please explain to us how it is that social pressures form collective morality. Please also explain how evolutionary, mechanistic processes formed morality.

Social animals that don't cooperate don't survive.

This is not complicated.

(27-08-2015 01:00 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Please explain why there is no universal law(s) of morality how it is that most if not all cultures at all times in all periods of history have held similar moral and legal codes.

Such as marrying your immediate family, the idea that the opportunity to rape the women and children of a slain opponent was a divine right, and so on?

Even ignoring the above, the fact that humans tend towards certain codes of behavior does not in any way indicate an external source of morality. The development of social mores is quite neatly within the predictions made by the theory of evolution.

The burden of proof is upon you, not me.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
27-08-2015, 07:21 PM
RE: problem of evil and suffering
(27-08-2015 06:08 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 12:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'm going to quibble with that.

Evolution has given us some rudiments (e.g. empathy) that channel and limit what human societies will come up with for morality. There are some things (unwarranted killing, theft, etc.) that are so common to societies that people mistake them for absolute.

It's just that evolution is not arbitrary; the products of evolution need to survive and the attributes that aid that are whatever works.
What shows up may be considered arbitrary, but what persists is not.

No arguments from me. I made note of it in my own post, in fact, though in rather less detail - the mention of evolutionary and social pressures shaping the more common principles in play.

I thought it might just be a different shade of meaning for 'arbitrary'.

Quote:But, as a whole, morality remains unshaped by any sort of guiding hand or law. It is a byproduct of pack behaviors becoming molded into the species. I use "arbitrary", in this case, to indicate that it isn't in any way a law unto itself.

Yeah, that.

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
28-08-2015, 09:53 AM
RE: problem of evil and suffering
(27-08-2015 01:34 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 12:56 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You don't already know what I might say? You cannot guess?

* I have the truth

Citation required. Every religion claims to have the truth. Your claim is no better than the others.

Quote:* Jesus rose from the dead, unlike other religious leaders

Citation required. This is a claim, not a fact. A claim proves nothing until you substantiate it. Good luck with that. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I don't care what the Bible says. It's a book. Anyone can write anything they like in a book.

Quote:* Atheists every day at TTA are living witnesses that what the Bible has to say about the unrighteous is utterly true

Citation required. There are some rude, foulmouthed atheists here. So what? I know some rude, foulmouthed Christians, too. "Call of the Wild" (who can be found right here on this forum) is as rude and arrogant as any atheist on the forum. And these are all relatively inconsequential "sins" anyway. If you want to talk about the serious things -- i.e., the things we send people to prison for -- well, there are far more Christians in prison than atheists. And nobody on this forum is going around killing or raping people. If the worst you can accuse us of is rudeness and profanity, so what? Grow some balls and get over it.

Quote:* The Bible has fulfilled prophecies within, proven by external data

Bullshit. I know you love your "prophecies", but every one of them was either written after the fact (real easy to make those kind of "prophecies") or is so vague as to be meaningless. The Bible is no better than Nostradamus or Jean Dixon or the daily horoscopes.

Quote:* Etc.

So, none of this is new and none of it is convincing. I've heard better arguments from Call of the Wild, and he isn't convincing either. I'm still waiting for anything that remotely resembles evidence.

I'm sorry if you've heard my arguments before. How did the apostles put it? "It is no trouble for me to repeat the same things to you again, for in them are salvation."

News flash:

Citations are not readily available for unexplained phenomena. That is why they are called unexplained phenomena.

Documentary evidence from reliable witnesses is available. There were 9 NT authors but 10 first-century historians who give credence to the events of the NT. Archaeology up to today's newspapers verify Bible prophecy. Most important:

God is hidden from those from those who loathe Him because that's the power of being self-willed.

I admit it's a bit hard to find in peer reviewed citations "Jesus rose from the dead." We're going to need to find His body first--of course, the Bible says He ascended following His resurrection. But as I've said BEFORE, YOU can have evidence from God.

Any time you wish it.

Based on your recent posts, you don't wish it.

Why? Are you afraid to have to deal with real evidence? Are you that cocksure that you are unwilling to pray to God? What's the worst thing that would happen? No answer, so that you would know for certain life is objectively meaningless?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: