Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

If that’s the case, then everything is brainwashing....

 

Back with the ad hominem again.
To not be honest in making points is to be dishonest in making points
and to accuse a person of being dishonest in making points is to
attack their character and to insult them.

How do you reconcile your continued ad hominem with being HonestJoe?
{This makes 3 or 4 times you have accused me of being dishonest}
So how do reconcile your continued ad hominem with being HonestJoe?


`

 

Yeah, any explanation of evil (or even absence of absolute good as I mention before) has to involve the word "can't" or "won't" and in either case, we have left the realm of omnipotence, or omnibenevolence. I've found that usually, what one has in mind when thinking of a god isn't a god (I know someone else already mentioned anthropomorphism.) Most people have a hard time wrapping their head around what it would be to be 'all' powerful. We aren't good at thinking in infinities. Most arguments for the sympathy towards a god make sense if that god is bound by similar constraints as humans, but not otherwise. In sum, as I mentioned before, appreciation of good things makes sense in a naturalistic explanation of the world, but not if there is a god. It's a little like feeling nothing but gratitude to a slaver for giving you just enough gruel to survive. It's better than some alternatives, but at an essentially invisible cost to the slaver, it could be much better.

 

Because I still feel it is true. You want atheists to accept the idea that an all powerful god would be responsible for all good things as well as all evil things but you don't actually accept that idea yourself.

 

{1} That question, in principle, could be asked about, for example,
each and every Pew Research Poll that has ever been conducted,
or that will be conducted in the future.

{2} I don't know that "all" descendants of Theists would have to
remain Theists, in order for this study below to be correct, do you?

Start quote.
"Theism worldwide is very strong and very healthy.
2.8 billion Muslims plus 2.9 billion Christians by 2050.
That comes out to 5.7 billion Theists by 2050
And that's not counting the Jews.
5.7 billion Theists is going to be a lot of Theists by 2050"
In the section By Country, here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...wth#By_country
End quote.

My view is that you cannot know what is in the minds of
the tens of millions of Muslims inside Europe and therefore
cannot know what their political goals are now, or will be
in the future.

I have read enough about this issue to know that both the
leaders of Europe and the native indigenous peoples of
Europe are scared and highly alarmed because of the
certain coming Islamification of all of Europe.

Islam pouring into Europe is a continual flood of Muslims
coming into the nations of Europe and the vast majorities
of them are not assimilating with European Western values
-- but are retaining their Islamic Theistic values and moreover
they are "doubling down" on their Islamic Theistic values
due to being inundated with what they view as "evil
decadent European immorality."

There is no way to predict the future of anything decades in the
future. For example, Secular Humanism may dwindle down to
such few numbers that it will gradually vanish off of Planet Earth
within the next say 40 years.
Christianity teaches that Secular Humanism will in fact vanish
off the Earth as the millenniums roll forward.

 

Back with the ad hominem again.
To not be honest in making points is to be dishonest in making points
and to accuse a person of being dishonest in making points is to
attack their character and to insult them.

How do you reconcile your continued ad hominem with being HonestJoe?
{This makes 4 or 5 times you have accused me of being dishonest}
So how do you reconcile your continued ad hominem with being HonestJoe?

* Nor will I ever.
* I personally live by faith.
* I am a Christian.
* Christianity is a faith.
* Christianity is not an intellectual system.
*I have always been up-front about Christianity being a faith and
therefore cannot be demonstrated true with Logic and Empiricism.
* Therefore on the basis of faith I have explained several times
why I "don't actually accept that idea" myself.
* If one desires to ridicule faith, that's okay. This is the Internet.
*Atheists are free to interpret my Opening Post as they wish.
* You are free to keep endlessly repeating the same points that
you have repeated over and over again.

 

Here is the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse on Richard Dawkins
in an article in the highly liberal The Guardian:

Sayeth the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse:

"But don't worry. In the God Delusion, we have a message
as simplistic as in The Genesis Flood."__The Atheist Philosopher Michael Ruse


:"Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously.
I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to
be an atheist and I meant it. __ "Michael Ruse

_____________


"Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians
claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to
understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant
of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try
to understand them, let alone believe them.

Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around
asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made
some momentous philosophical discovery.

Dawkins was indignant when, on the grounds that inanimate
objects cannot have emotions, philosophers like Mary Midgley
criticized his metaphorical notion of a selfish gene. Sauce
for the biological goose is sauce for the atheist gander.

There are a lot of very bright and well informed Christian
theologians. We atheists should demand no less. "__Michael Ruse


____________

"Richard Dawkins has likened me to the pusillanimous appeaser
at Munich, Neville Chamberlain."__The Atheist Philosopher Michael Ruse.

JAG Note: It don't pay to disagree with the great man Richard Dawkins --
even if you're a fellow atheist. No disagreement allowed.

Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse

____________

So?

So the above casts a shadow on anything and everything written by Richard Dawkins
so far as I am concerned.

Also Richard Dawkins is an angry man. I can pull up Dawkins' quotes that strongly
suggests that he has a strong dislike in his heart for Theists and especially for Christians.

Richard Dawkins likes to make extremely harsh, bitter, ugly, and shocking comments
about faith and people of faith. His attitude and behavior strongly suggests that he
cannot be trusted to be a disinterested unbiased un-prejudiced source of objective
information and knowledge.

ALL the above is about Dawkins himself as being an untrustworthy source, regardless of
which particular Dawkins' book is being considered.



`

 

Exactly. You opened the thread requesting (some) atheists state a truth which you don't actually believe is true. How is that honest behaviour?

 

I never claimed that ALL of Dawkins' arguments are good. I said his one regarding the watchmaker was good . . . which you avoided entirely.

 

Sure. SO here was my claim: "If the God of the Bible exists, no human can compare to his evil. Not by a long shot."

If the God of the Bible exists, he wiped out almost all life on the planet. No human can ever match that amount of mass murder. That doesn't mean he didn't also do good things, but a pediatric surgeon who has saved thousands of lives but who is an unrepentant serial killer on the weekends and has killed hundreds is still an evil person. His lack of action is pretty concerning, but his intentional action is far worse: eternal torture for non-believers, outlawing freedom of religion on pain of death, ordering the murder of homosexuals, ordering slavery, ordering infanticide, personally committing murder and infanticide, etc. etc. etc.

 

I don't understand that at all?

JAG Previously Asked:
{3} Do your wish that John 3:16's eternal life could be empirically
demonstrated to be true at the certainty-level of 4 + 4 = 8 --
or demonstrated true with a very high level of Probability?
{4} If it could, would you become a Christian?

Yardmeat Then Replied:
"I can't make sense of this question.{ie my {4} I base my
opinions of reality on the evidence, not what I want to
be true".___Yardmeat

JAG Now Asks:
How can you not make sense of my {4} in light
of my {3} ?

My {3} Said this:
If John 3:16's eternal life could be empirically
demonstrated to be true at the certainty-level
of of 2 + 2 = 4 or demonstrated true with a
very high level of Probability --then you could
reasonably expect to have eternal life when
you died.

My {3} would actually become your "reality of
the evidence."

You told me that the thought of ceasing to exist
made you sad. So why would not eternal life
make you glad? Logically it would make you
glad.

So?

So how can my {4} . . . {in light of my {3} . . .not
make sense to you?

In other words, why would you find my {4}
to not make sense if you had empirical
evidence that my {3} was true? My {3}
is that you DO have empirical evidence
that my {3} is true.


`

 

JAG Previously Wrote:
"ALL the above is about Dawkins himself as being an
untrustworthy source, regardless of which particular
Dawkins' book is being considered."___JAG

And will continue to avoid entirely because :

"ALL the above is about Dawkins himself as being an
untrustworthy source, regardless of which particular
Dawkins' book is being considered."___JAG

 

And surely you know this is an ad hominem attack and is completely irrationa.

Then you are publicly admitting you prefer basic logical fallacies over honest debate. So why even start a thread in the first place? The strength of the argument is in the argument. Personal attacks against the source are one thing, but using those personal attacks as an excuse to dismiss the argument without so much as examining it is simply intellectually dishonest.

 

some fact based, some mythical, some learned based on actual experience

 

That depends what you mean by "probability." Regardless, I would have to have the same attitude toward all other religions that offer eternal life. And you forget the flipside of your argument: it involves eternal torture for others. No, I would not wish that to be true.

No, that doesn't follow. Both outcomes could be undesirable, and I gave reasons for comfort in light of "ceasing to exist" that you ignored completely. If me living eternally in bliss means others being tortured for eternity, and if "living in bliss" requires bending the knee to a monstrous tyrant, then no, that would not make me glad at all. That would be worse than ceasing to exist. You have also given me no reason to prefer your proposed afterlife to anyone else's. I can think of other religious propositions for the afterlife that I find far, far more preferable than what you are proposing.

Because, even if you had demonstrated that your religion is preferable (and you haven't), it doesn't matter. Preference doesn't matter. The universe doesn't care about what I would prefer. Truth is the truth, whether I want it to be or not.

I have no such evidence.

 

All of which are inherently subjective.

 

yep, which is why government should not be pushing religion on the people

Trump actually gassed and assaulted peaceful people, to get a photo op in front of a Church holding a bible upside down yesterday, sad....

 

That is a faith position.
"I believe"___Yardmeat
To believe is to have and exercise faith.
It cannot be demonstrated that we do in fact cease to exist when we die.
So?
So the non-faith position is I do not know if we cease to exist when we die,
because there is no empirical evidence pro or con.

Noted.

The man whose doctors give him only 6 months to live would
have the same good reasons to follow the Golden Rule as the
man with 50 years left to live.

The following comment is strictly about the "B-theory of
time" and not about you and NOT a reflection upon you.

My view is that the "B-theory of time" is itself nonsensical
and 100% absurd.
The concept of "ceasing to exist" is a valid concept and
can never be reduced to nonsense.

John now exist.
John dies.
When John dies, his complete and total self ceases to exist.
John no longer exist anywhere in the Universe.
That makes perfect sense.
{But its sad, to be sure,}

How about applied to a dog?

Spot now exists.
Spot dies.
Little Johnny buries Spot in the backyard.
Spot no longer exists anywhere in the Universe.
Makes perfect sense.

That makes some sense.
A lot more than the "B-theory" of time.
Yet it is also non-sensical to hold that the past is not real.
How does the "A-theory" define "the past"?
If it refers to the events of the past -- then the "A-theory
of time" is as non-sensical as is the "B-theory -- clearly
yesterday the protesters were burning and looting in several
cities across America.
George Washington actually crossed the Delaware River.

I am writing this post.
Time is passing.
My writing this post is not "mostly an illusion."
Rather, its as real as real can get.

The beach too is clearly designed.
All the beaches of the world are clearly designed.
So is the Earth.
So is the Universe.

A working Rolex Watch is clearly and undeniable remarkable.

Even a Rolex Watch that no longer works is clearly and undeniably
remarkable -- and much more than merely remarkable --- its a
clear and compelling demonstration of Intelligent Design.

The idea that the parts of a Rolex watch could assemble themselves
via natural processes without the guiding hand of an Intelligent Designer
is 100% preposterous and 100% absurd total nonsense.

"The Blind Watchmaker Watchmaker" point is that Theistic Evolution
designed the human eye.

So?

So when I said the following, what I said was reasonable:

JAG Previously Said:
"Richard Dawkins attempted to answer Paley by comparing
the evolution of the human eye to Paley's {Rolex} Watch,
and wrote The Blind Watchmaker --- I understand Dawkins'
point to be that blind evolutionary processes produced the
human eye that was just as complex as was the {Rolex}
Watch. So? So no Intelligent Design.

Some Christian apologist objected to Dawkins' claim
and spoke of the "Blind Watchmaker Watchmaker"
which point was that Dawkins had merely substituted
his "highly complex human eye" for Paley's "highly
complex {Rolex} Watch" and therefore we are "right
back " to Paley's "highly complex {Rolex} Watch"
and therefore right back to Intelligent Design."___JAG



`

 

Back with the ad hominem again.
To not be honest in making points is to be dishonest in making points
and to accuse a person of being dishonest in making points is to
attack their character and to insult them.

How do you reconcile your continued ad hominem with being HonestJoe?
{This makes 5 or 6 times you have accused me of being dishonest}
So how do you reconcile your continued ad hominem with being HonestJoe?

 

What does this mean? Governments will always push their own perception of reality on the people. A perception made up of ideas that they were conditioned to believe ever since they were young.

What’s your point?

 

No.
Completely rational.
Dawkins earned his criticism. See the atheist philosopher
Michael Ruse up-thread.

No. Just because you make that claim does not mean that it is
correct.
You are not the authority on what is, or is not, "honest debate."

It has been explained several times. Re-read the thread.

It has no strength.
It's no more than Dawkins' gobblydegook --- a dude that
is not even polite and civil to "his own kind" -- but attacks
a man like Michael Ruse just because Ruse did not
agree with HIM -- the Great Man Richard Dawkins.

No.
That is what you say. You are not an authority on what is,
or is not, "intellectually dishonest."
I am no more "intellectually dishonest" than you are.
I see you're joining "Honest"Joe in ad hominem --this
is how most atheists vs. Christian threads usually end up.
I DO dismiss Dawkins's "arguments" -- but you can love
them and present them as often as you desire. This is
the Internet.

__________


Thought For Today:

"Richard Dawkins attempted to answer Paley by comparing
the evolution of the human eye to Paley's {Rolex} Watch,
and wrote The Blind Watchmaker --- I understand Dawkins'
point to be that blind evolutionary processes produced the
human eye that was just as complex as was the {Rolex}
Watch. So? So no Intelligent Design.

Some Christian apologist objected to Dawkins' claim
and spoke of the "Blind Watchmaker Watchmaker"
which point was that Dawkins had merely substituted
his "highly complex human eye" for Paley's "highly
complex {Rolex} Watch" and therefore we are "right
back " to Paley's "highly complex {Rolex} Watch"
and therefore right back to Intelligent Design."___JAG



`

 

Okay.
Thanks for the chat.
Take care.

 

Objectively speaking, an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy. I'm not judging that. Logic is judging that.

Objectively speaking, an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy. I'm not judging that. Logic is judging that. You are openly admitting that you are unwilling to base your arguments on logic.

Re-reading doesn't matter when you sit here openly admitting that you are unwilling to rely on logic or even accept logic when making your arguments.

Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies. If you don't understand this, then you are not prepared to have a rational discussion. I'll take your admission into consideration.

Ad hominem arguments are, by definition, intellectually dishonest. Everyone who can grasp the concept of a logical fallacies is aware of this.

Desperate defections won't work. You have openly admitted that you are basing your argument on a core logical fallacy. I'll go with logic and reason. You keep going with willingly-dishonest fallacies if you wish.

 

And thank you for yet another admission that your proposal for debate and discussion was a dishonest one from the beginning. Take care.

 

Probably that trump is an assh*le...