But seriously . . . atheism?

[Rosie the Riveter]

Oh crap this thread is for atheists, I didn't know that, does confused count?

I thought all atheists were confused.

Uuuuhhhh --- Uummmm -- What was this thread about -- Michael Fisher?

[Michael Fisher]

Me:

Ready! Fire! Aim!

Act in haste, repent at leisure!

[Michael Fisher]

Me:

I'll know it when I see it!

I'll see it when I know it!

[MaineShark]

Well no offense Joe, but while I am sure you are a good guy
you are not an all knowing all powerful being, for whom stopping
evil would be no big thing.

So?  I don't hold everyone to the same standards.  Deity or not.  I am under no obligation to save another.  I may still choose to do so, in certain circumstances.  I am probably going to do so, in some particular circumstances.  And I am nearly certain to do so in a few circumstances.

But it would not be malevolent of me to fail to save someone, regardless of how easy it might be for me to do so.  No one may place an obligation upon me; I am only obliged to do those things which I choose to undertake.

Joe

[Pat K]

You can word it however you like, Joe
But it would become malevolent the minute
it stops being words on a screen.

[Caleb]

You can ask the question all you want; lord knows I do.  I'm at the place where I sort of figure that the damage necessary to destroy the evil violently would probably cause more harm than the passive methods God uses.  Until I have complete knowledge of all the factors involved, I'm not really in a position to judge.  The best case that an atheist can make is this one:

Given all the factors of which I am aware, I am unable to reconcile a loving, omnipotent God with the present state of evil in the world.

The first clause necessarily implies so much lack of information so as to make the second clause nothing more than speculation.  We do it because evil affects us.  But a Christian knows that God is addressing the problem of evil (although maybe not in the way we would like to see it done), and even if we don't understand it, we know that when all is said and done, it will be shown that what God did was the best, most just course of action.

[Minsk]

But a Christian knows that God is addressing the problem of evil (although maybe not in the way we would like to see it done), and even if we don't understand it, we know that when all is said and done, it will be shown that what God did was the best, most just course of action.

That justification assumes that God's omnipotence is limited, either by natural fact or by personal choice.

[Caleb]

How so?  To me, it presupposes that God chooses to act in the way that is most advantageous and it is our limitation and lack of knowledge that causes us to fail to grasp that.

[Minsk]

How so?  To me, it presupposes that God chooses to act in the way that is most advantageous and it is our limitation and lack of knowledge that causes us to fail to grasp that.

Omnipotence is a nifty thing, one can instantly reconfigure the entire universe to whatever condition is desired. You claim that God is addressing the problem of evil, so is obviously not going the instantaneous route. As opposed to simply rewriting everything and everyone to whatever they would be in his end state -- hence avoiding all the transient evil, with absolutely no ill effects.

The usual limit imposed on a  benevolent deity seems to be a preference to not trample free will, or the inability to do so.

[Caleb]

I think that has a lot to do with it, certainly.  It's not that it is God's preference.  Remember that omnipotence does *not* mean that one can do anything.  Logical contradictions are not possible, and this has been acknowledged since before Christianity. Before Christ, Jewish scholars were reasoning that if an individual asked, "Can God do this and such?" that if "this and such" was a logical contradiction, it was as if the individual had not completed his sentence.

God cannot set up a universe in which there is free will, but wherein individuals cannot make free decisions.  That is because that is a logical contradiction.

Now, I for one don't know that free will explains everything.  But I think there are unexplained factors, factors that I will never know, that probably will explain it better once I see God face to face.  For one, Christianity has always taught that mankind and creation are fallen.  Unfortunately, many schools of christianity have put the horse before the cart and taught that creation is fallen because man is fallen.  This is too man-centric for my tastes.  I tend to think that man is fallen because creation is fallen.  What that means I will probably never understand in my life as a human.  But I tend to think the answer lies there.

[KurtDaBear]

Can you prove that no god exists, anywhere?  How?  You would have to have god-like powers to be able to prove such a thing.

You can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

You can't prove that a one-eyed, one-horned, flying, purple people eater doesn't exist, either.

Atheism is based on face to every bit the same extent that theism is, and goes one further into the realms of illogic by claiming to be able to prove that something doesn't exist.

Agnostics have the good sense not to make any claim regarding things they don't know.

Joe

No one can prove a negative.  That's an ancient basic given--like Occam's Razor.

And we all take things on faith every day, i.e., walking onto a floor shows our faith that it won't collapse or taking a deep breath of fresh air in the woods without fearing we'll inhale mustard gas.

As to the matter of atheism, however, I don't have have to prove or disprove anything because I'm not contending that my universe is ruled by an invisible, inaudible, omnipotent being who loves me and listens to me but never talks back except to the occasional poor soul who is generally institutionalized after revealing his conversations.

It is the theists who must prove what they posit.  I am claiming nothing, and I am believing nothing, until they prove it.  (And they have to prove it without using the "Word of God" from a God they have not proved.)

[Minsk]

I think that has a lot to do with it, certainly.  It's not that it is God's preference.  Remember that omnipotence does *not* mean that one can do anything.  Logical contradictions are not possible, and this has been acknowledged since before Christianity. Before Christ, Jewish scholars were reasoning that if an individual asked, "Can God do this and such?" that if "this and such" was a logical contradiction, it was as if the individual had not completed his sentence.

This would be relevant if God's objective were a logical contradiction, which seems somewhat unlikely. There is a fundamental contradiction in asserting both an omnipotent deity and a reality that is not in the possible state the deity wishes it to be.

<edit>
Though given the subtext of your last paragraph, we're probably parked here. Retreating into arbitrary faith generally convinces me to find a more rational target. And you're not remotely obnoxious enough to be fun picking a fight with
</edit>

[Caleb]

 

er ... I appreciate the vote of confidence ... I think. 

in all seriousness, like I've said before, this is the single greatest problem facing theology.  I wish I had a rational, easily explainable answer for everything. Some things I don't know, and probably won't ever know.

[Minsk]

in all seriousness, like I've said before, this is the single greatest problem facing theology.  I wish I had a rational, easily explainable answer for everything. Some things I don't know, and probably won't ever know.

Well, there is a rational, easily explainable answer to observed phenomena... but it doesn't do much to support theology

One of the big risks of killing off the state evaporating would be someone erecting a powerful church to replace it. So you folks of the Christian-but-libertarian-anyway persuasion are probably a good model for converting the masses... If the average person really does need a benevolent overseer to believe in, I would much prefer a friend in the sky than a dictator on the ground.

Because the idea of the Dark Ages replayed with nukes gives me the heebie-jeebies.

[Rocketman]

The "limited omnipotence" deity sounds a lot more plausible than all-powerful deity theory.  I don't see why we need God to be omnipotent, or even 100% benevolent.  Or rather, why some insist with so little evidence that he MUST be those things.