Atheism, theism and jelly beans

In my opinion God does not exist because millions of people suffer needlessly in this world.

If God existed then this world would have been much more friendly to life and people. But the evidence increasingly shows that this world was not designed for us.

If God existed then everyone would have the chance to be wealthy, healthy and happy but the cruel reality is that only a few really get the chance to be wealthy, healthy and very happy in life while the majority live in filth and misery.
 
What garden...the one the Sumerians had? and later as it must have seemed like a good idea was included in the Bible...so much for being original.

The Sumerians also gave the un named authors of that first chapter the great flood as well...but that can be expected as believers never seem to have an original idea or the ability to analysis any ideas really.

It seems the god story is made up by humans...and how many god stories have humans made up ... Are these creations put in the mind of man by a super entity.
.if so it's not good at mind control...it seems the only thing that keeps a religion going is opposition to it...if believers were left alone to think rather than constantly defend their crazy notions they would no doubt move on... Look at what happens here...if not for religion threads it will just go away ... and we would take about real things and stop playing make believe.
Alex
 
I can't stand religious people and everything they stand for. Religious people are simply liars in my opinion.

Religion is based on lies and that's all there is to it.

Many people are living in conditions of extreme poverty or are forced to live on the streets due to lack of money to buy a home.

This cannot possibly be the work of a loving God.

If a loving God existed then there wouldn't be so many people suffering in poverty or greedy Capitalists who exploit and profit out of extremely hard-working people.

If a loving God existed then there wouldn't be poverty or misery or suffering or people who are forced into very painful and exploitative hard work and if they can't work then the only option for them is to live on the streets and starve to death.

This world is way too cruel and dangerous for it to be the work of a all-loving God.
 
pluto2 said:
In my opinion God does not exist because millions of people suffer needlessly in this world.

If God existed then this world would have been much more friendly to life and people. But the evidence increasingly shows that this world was not designed for us.

If God existed then everyone would have the chance to be wealthy, healthy and happy but the cruel reality is that only a few really get the chance to be wealthy, healthy and very happy in life while the majority live in filth and misery.
Click to expand...

No one can, no one may save you but yourself. I can take you there but you must walk the path alone.
 
James R said:
  • When an atheist says she doesn't believe in your God, that usually doesn't mean she believes your God doesn't exist. Rather, it means exactly what it appears to mean on its face: that the atheist doesn't share your God belief - no more and no less.
  • To put it another way, the atheist who says she doesn't believe in your God is not "in denial" about the existence of your God. She isn't denying that your God exists; she is telling you that she doesn't believe your God exists.
Click to expand...
  • When an Hindu says she doesn't believe in your God, that usually doesn't mean she believes your God doesn't exist. Rather, it means exactly what it appears to mean on its face: that the Hindu doesn't share your God belief - no more and no less.
  • To put it another way, the Hindu who says she doesn't believe in your God is not "in denial" about the existence of your God. She isn't denying that your God exists; she is telling you that she doesn't believe your God exists.
  • When an atheist acknowledges that your God must logically either exist or not exist, that is not equivalent to the atheist implicitly agreeing with your belief that your God exists.
Click to expand...
  • When a theist acknowledges that you have a valid point about irrefutable evidence, that is not equivalent to the theist implicitly agreeing with your belief that God doesn't exists.
  • If you can't adequately explain to atheists how you know your God exists, then you probably don't have a good reason to claim that you know that your God exists.
Click to expand...
  • If you can't adequately explain to others how you know your significant others love you, then you probably don't have a good reason to claim that you know that your significant others love you.
  • Ancient scriptures tell you that ancient people thought a God existed. They are unlikely to be regarded by atheists as convincing evidence that your God exists.
Click to expand...
  • 80% of the people in the world currently believe a God exists. They are unlikely to be regarded by atheists as convincing evidence that your God exists.
  • Your gut feeling that your God exists is unlikely to convince an atheist that your God exists.
Click to expand...
  • Your dismissal of everything that cannot be proven beyond doubt is unlikely to convince a theist that you have refuted something, in a world where many human experiences are not provable.
 
pluto2 said:
I can't stand religious people and everything they stand for. Religious people are simply liars in my opinion.

Religion is based on lies and that's all there is to it.

Many people are living in conditions of extreme poverty or are forced to live on the streets due to lack of money to buy a home.

This cannot possibly be the work of a loving God.

If a loving God existed then there wouldn't be so many people suffering in poverty or greedy Capitalists who exploit and profit out of extremely hard-working people.

If a loving God existed then there wouldn't be poverty or misery or suffering or people who are forced into very painful and exploitative hard work and if they can't work then the only option for them is to live on the streets and starve to death.

This world is way too cruel and dangerous for it to be the work of a all-loving God.
Click to expand...
I agree.

You use the word "loving" too much. Santa=Happy God=Fear
 
pluto2 said:
In my opinion God does not exist because millions of people suffer needlessly in this world.

If God existed then this world would have been much more friendly to life and people. But the evidence increasingly shows that this world was not designed for us.

If God existed then everyone would have the chance to be wealthy, healthy and happy but the cruel reality is that only a few really get the chance to be wealthy, healthy and very happy in life while the majority live in filth and misery.
Click to expand...
The problem of evil is an old and well-addressed objection to the existence of a god. Free will requires the potential for bad things, otherwise the person seeking to do bad things could not have free will. Contingent will is not free will.

Sorry to hear you live in filth and misery.
 
Vociferous said:
  • When an Hindu says she doesn't believe in your God, that usually doesn't mean she believes your God doesn't exist. Rather, it means exactly what it appears to mean on its face: that the Hindu doesn't share your God belief - no more and no less.
  • To put it another way, the Hindu who says she doesn't believe in your God is not "in denial" about the existence of your God. She isn't denying that your God exists; she is telling you that she doesn't believe your God exists.
Click to expand...
Okay. Is this also directed at the same theists I was addressing?

When a theist acknowledges that you have a valid point about irrefutable evidence, that is not equivalent to the theist implicitly agreeing with your belief that God doesn't exists.
Click to expand...
Did somebody mention irrefutable evidence?

If you can't adequately explain to others how you know your significant others love you, then you probably don't have a good reason to claim that you know that your significant others love you.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

80% of the people in the world currently believe a God exists. They are unlikely to be regarded by atheists as convincing evidence that your God exists.
Click to expand...
Correct. That's called an appeal to popularity.

Your dismissal of everything that cannot be proven beyond doubt is unlikely to convince a theist that you have refuted something, in a world where many human experiences are not provable.
Click to expand...
Whose dismissal of everything that cannot be proven beyond doubt? Who are you referring to?

Speaking for myself, I don't demand proof beyond doubt of God. Reasonably convincing evidence or argument would be sufficient for me to start believing (again). The apparent lack of any such evidence or convincing argument is why I'm an atheist.
 
Vociferous said:
Free will requires the potential for bad things, otherwise the person seeking to do bad things could not have free will.
Click to expand...
What about evils that have nothing to do with people? For example, consider natural disasters that kill thousands of people. Why does God allow those? Are they a necessary adjunct to human free will as well?
 
James R said:
Okay. Is this also directed at the same theists I was addressing?
Click to expand...
Yep. If you're claim is true of atheists, it should equally hold for a Hindu's disbelief of the Christian god. But if the Hindu's belief is exclusionary (even though Hinduism is polytheistic) then one might wonder why an atheist's is not. Not saying it is, just that what holds for one should of both.

Did somebody mention irrefutable evidence?
Click to expand...
Atheists often require such, whether you mentioned it or not.

Correct. That's called an appeal to popularity.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, just disabusing the straw man that anyone makes an appeal solely to ancient scripture and peoples. Doesn't make it a valid an argument, but neither is a straw man.

Whose dismissal of everything that cannot be proven beyond doubt? Who are you referring to?

Speaking for myself, I don't demand proof beyond doubt of God. Reasonably convincing evidence or argument would be sufficient for me to start believing (again). The apparent lack of any such evidence or convincing argument is why I'm an atheist.
Click to expand...
Lots of gray area in what you, personally, consider "reasonably convincing", and meeting that vague criteria effectively requires proof. But proof of such things would essentially preclude the freedom to decide for oneself.

James R said:
What about evils that have nothing to do with people? For example, consider natural disasters that kill thousands of people. Why does God allow those? Are they a necessary adjunct to human free will as well?
Click to expand...
That's the problem of natural evil. And the answer to that is basically the same as to the problem of evil. So yes, things like natural disasters, genetic abnormalities, etc. are necessary consequences of a world that allows for free will. This is because free will actually requires causality. Far from being in opposition to determinism, a genuinely free choice is only free with some ability to predict its consequences. Otherwise, every choice is as arbitrary as its consequences, and free will requires meaningful choice. This means that things must be predictable enough that they allow for unintended consequences. Where all wills are equal.
 
Vociferous said:
That's the problem of natural evil. And the answer to that is basically the same as to the problem of evil. So yes, things like natural disasters, genetic abnormalities, etc. are necessary consequences of a world that allows for free will. This is because free will actually requires causality. Far from being in opposition to determinism, a genuinely free choice is only free with some ability to predict its consequences. Otherwise, every choice is as arbitrary as its consequences, and free will requires meaningful choice. This means that things must be predictable enough that they allow for unintended consequences. Where all wills are equal.
Click to expand...
You probably don't mean "necessary consequences" - since that would put free will as the cause, and natural disasters as the effect.
You probably mean "co-requisite".

But I still don't see the logic. A world where there were no natural disasters - but plenty of mankind-induced disasters - would still have sufficient unpredictability and consequence to test our free will.
 
DaveC426913 said:
You probably don't mean "necessary consequences" - since that would put free will as the cause, and natural disasters as the effect.
You probably mean "co-requisite".

But I still don't see the logic. A world where there were no natural disasters - but plenty of mankind-induced disasters - would still have sufficient unpredictability and consequence to test our free will.
Click to expand...
I do mean "necessary consequences of a world that allows for free will", not free will itself. World is the cause and natural disasters are the effect.

So even though humans are not predictable, you envision a world where the consequences of their actions are? And you can somehow distinguish between the wholly human-caused and natural contributing factors, no matter how far down the chain of causation? Was hurricane Katrina a disaster because of nature or human neglect of the levees or choice to live there in the first place? Was the weather, itself, caused by human pollution, and would that have even been a disaster without other human contributions?

And if we couldn't distinguish between human-caused and natural contributing factors, wouldn't nature seem essentially as arbitrary as if there was no sufficiently predictable causation? What, even though people completely neglect to protect themselves from the elements, the world would just magically protect them anyway? That would seem to preclude doubt in a god or a reliably predictable natural world (from which we could develop science), both necessary for free will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top