Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.

FoxHastings said: ↑
BUT for one big glaring error …..ALL "MEN " (HUMANS) ARE NOT EVIL, They DO NOT ALL VIOLATE GODSY'S "SYTEM" BUT SUFFER ANYWAY!

Says who ? You?

I never said it did..

You're the one defending him.

I have no misunderstandings.


It is an EVIL entity that makes it's own innocent creations suffer.

 

What does that mean ? Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc who are not atheist, don’t believe that.

 

Here's how Thoughtco describes it:

"Since an individual needs the most favorable traits to survive in the environment, it follows that individuals with favorable adaptations will live long enough to pass their genes to their offspring. Those lacking the favorable traits—the "unfit"—most likely won't live long enough to pass down their unfavorable traits, and eventually, those traits will be bred out of the population."

Vaccines, medical treatments, etc., keep those unfavorable traits alive into the next generation, meaning those that natural selection, adaptation, evolution, survival of the fittest, whatever you want to call it, would have snuffed out survive to pass on their genes to the next generation. Agent Smith in The Matrix called humans a virus, not because we infect others, but because there's no upper limit to how many of us can be produced. Other species have defined upper limits, they cannot grow beyond the food sources or geographic areas they inhabit. We don't because we grow our own food and expand into other geographic areas even if those areas are hostile to human life. We defy evolution, we defy survival of the fittest, we defy natural selection.

Those who are actually seeking asylum (and not just a better economic life) can apply for asylum from their home countries or at the border. They do not have to invade our country to seek asylum. But the "seeking asylum" thing is a ruse. Most people coming here are not in any political danger back home. Most people coming here just want to improve their economic conditions. That is not a legitimate reason to come here and not a legitimate reason to let them in.

Separating children from the adults they are with serves an important purpose in that it helps to identify children who are being used as pawns (families get preferential treatment, so some invaders buy a child to bring with them) or who are being sex-trafficked (27% of all sex-trafficked people in the US are foreign born). A child with an adult who is not his/her parent is not going to talk with that person present. And then as I already pointed out, an adult who is going to jail doesn't get to take his child(ren) with him.

 

Enhanced by our knowledge of genetics and natural selection is not the same thing as "working with" natural selection, which I think was the term you used earlier. Defeating smallpox was working against natural selection, not working with it. Working with natural selection would have been allowing anyone who couldn't survive to die without any intervention, thereby making sure that only those who could survive smallpox would pass their genes on to the next generation. See how that works?

 

I'm fine with that. For the record, going to jail for hiring illegals is a possibility, though not often invoked.

Israeli sentenced for role in illegally employing over 100 immigrants and harboring some in Baltimore

An Israeli citizen was sentenced to six months in federal prison for her role in illegally harboring Israeli and French immigrants in Baltimore housing in what federal prosecutors described as a more than $5 million scheme to profit off more than 100 undocumented workers.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-israeli-french-immigrant-20190701-story.html

 

Yeah, they pretty much are. "There is none righteous, no not one." "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Now here's where your argument breaks down. If God does not exist, then evil does not exist. If God does exist, then God gets to decide what is evil. Either way, you're wrong.

 

You like gods system. Let babies die in famine even though he can produce rain. He sure must be sadistic. Or maybe he’s just too busy in the middle of a football huddle

 

Tell me about this atheist dictionary that you are creating and believing. We believe there is no such thing as evil? What a silly thing to say. This is why people who speak like this are dangerous. You create a ridiculous strawman and then takeoff with it. So your logic is if you don’t believe in God and believe in science there can be no evil. How ridiculous

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
BTW, since the OWNERS of companies that hire illegals are comitting a crime AND encouraging people to come over the border FOR those jobs , WHY aren't THEY in dog kennels, too ???

ONE example and then you carefully picked an Israeli (????)


AND still didn't answer my question.

 

GREAT POINT !!!!!!!

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
BUT for one big glaring error …..ALL "MEN " (HUMANS) ARE NOT EVIL, They DO NOT ALL VIOLATE GODSY'S "SYTEM" BUT SUFFER ANYWAY!

So your godsy created evil....for NO other pur[pose than to make the INNOCENT suffer.....how deplorable!

Then that is a GOOD THING!!! No evil....you just said without godsy there would be no evil !!!


So he IS evil.


Wouldn't NO evil be better for humans??!!!!!

That silliness is in response to :
FoxHastings said: ↑
It is an EVIL entity that makes it's own innocent creations suffer.""


HOW did you prove me wrong????


So does godsy think starving a child to death is evil? I decided that was evil without HIS advice....

IF he thought it wasn't evil would YOU agree ?



You seem to have his ear and seem to act as his spokesperson......how did YOU get that job???

 

According to others, God did not create evil, he created free will, and man freely chose evil.

Right. Without God, without any external measure of morality, there is no good and evil, only what is. Nature is bloody in tooth and claw, so a baby zebra that eats grass is no better and no worse than a lion that eats the baby zebra. Children dying in a famine are just "nature's way" of thinning the herd.

Not sure how you get from doesn't exist to is evil.

Death being inevitable no matter how you slice it, I can't see a system in which "no evil" is even possible. The only people without problems are in the graveyard.

1) I already pointed out that I can't explain the mind of God.
2) I already pointed out that if that child gets to go to Heaven and skips a life of misery here on earth, then a child starving to death is not evil.
3) You'll have to explain to me how a child starving to death is evil if God does not exist.

I'm special.

 

According to lots more, allegedly godsy created EVERYTHING.

.




BS! I know many people who don't believe in godsy and are good , honest, decent people.


….and many who believe in godsy who AREN'T.

What a nasty, col;d attitude toward innocent children starving,.....and whatever created that "nature"is nasty and deplorable and EVIL.

EASY, if godsy exists and allegedly created everything then HE created evil.

If he doesn't exist that doesn't necessarily mean evil can't exist.

That isn't logical. Death could still be part of the natural process of life WITHOUT the pain and suffering.

BUT you KEEP DOING IT, you keep explaining god....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STUNNINGLY ILLOGICAL !!!!!!

GOOD GRIEF!!! YOU need someone to tell you that starving a child to death is evil !!!!

Oh, you are" special" all right...…...that isn't always a good thing...

 

*Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time. *

No, you’re wrong. Letting people die is no more a description of natural selection then developing a vaccine.
Natural selection is also a key consideration in the development of vaccinations and an apt description of its effects on the surviving host of vaccines. Deal with it. Take a class in biology. Either way, natural selection is at work.

 

By that line of reasoning, natural selection doesn’t occur with the advent of use of fire to keep warm because it interferes with man’s ability to adapt to the cold. Actually, using fire and releasing the pressure of adapting to cold over time, allows the adapting of other traits which accelerate the development of human beings in another direction, often in line with enhanced intellectual capabilities....like developing warmth by other means other then by fire.

 

What do “ others” have to do with evidence ?

 

Jewish philosophy stresses that free will is a product of the intrinsic human soul, using the word neshama (from the Hebrew root n.sh.m. or .נ.ש.מ meaning "breath"), but the ability to make a free choice is through Yechida (from Hebrew word "yachid", יחיד, singular), the part of the soul that is united with God, the only being that is not hindered by or dependent on cause and effect (thus, freedom of will does not belong to the realm of the physical reality, and inability of natural [atheist] philosophy to account for it is expected).

neoatheists on the other hand have nothing but their intense LACK.
they lack a soul intrinsic soul not with standing because its all intangible and if you cant touch it and break it with a hammer atheists dont beleive it exits, they have no free will.

emphasis added

 

Is there such a thing as a regular atheist in your lexicon
You know, someone who really doesn’t care to listen to biblical story tales and pretend it’s evidence.

 

Which only leads to the problem of evil. Here are just a few of the discussions of the problem I found in a quick search:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
https://www.plato-philosophy.org/teachertoolkit/the-problem-of-evil/
https://www.philosophyzer.com/the-problem-of-evil/
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/04/07/the-problem-of-evil/
https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/problem-evil

Note that Plato and Aristotle couldn't fully resolve the problem, and neither of them were Christian.

But you're interpreting what is into what is good and bad. As the shrinks say, nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. You're imposing your own views of good and bad onto a world that simply exists and doesn't give a damn about your opinion.

It's important to understand the ramifications of whatever philosophy you pursue. If you pursue a philosophy of atheism, you must understand the ramifications of that philosophy, one of which is, there is no good or evil. Children starving to death is not evil, genocide is not evil, stuffing children into ovens is not evil. Evil can only exist if there's an external standard of morality, a GOD to say, "That's wrong." Otherwise, evil only exists in the mind of man, and the mind of man, as we have seen throughout history, is extremely flexible on what it defines as "evil". If you want to make God exist and be evil, you've essentially doomed yourself to a life of misery and unhappiness. Only by God existing and being good can you say there's good and evil in the world.

Theoretically speaking, this isn't necessarily true. Consider the parents of a psychopathic killer, neither of whom are psychopathic killers themselves and did not abuse the child. It's true that they "created" this evil child, but also true that they are not responsible for the child's evil. One comedian speculated that Satan must have been about 18 when he rebelled against God and was kicked out of heaven. Now he's just evil out of spite, not because he wants to be.

See above about the slipperiness of defining evil without an external source of morality.

Tell it to the baby zebra.

I'm doing the best I can considering a) I'm an atheist, and b) I'm not trained in apologetics. If we could get someone trained in apologetics in here to answer your questions instead, I'd gladly bow out.

No, I need you to explain to me how a child starving to death is evil in the absence of God.

No sense of humor.

 

I would probably qualify as a "regular" atheist to Koko, since I don't use the "lack" excuse but instead say there is no God, as atheists of the past used to do. He uses the term "neo-atheists" to describe those who claim they "lack belief" and then try to shift the burden of proof onto theists. But 99% of actual philosophers reject that formulation and say that atheists have just as much a burden of proof as theists do. On the other hand, 99% of atheists don't have any proof for their claims, either, just the statement, "It doesn't make sense!", which is not proof. I do have proof, though. I managed to prove to myself that God (at least the God we think of in the West) cannot exist. Koko is that rare bird, an actual agnostic, one unwilling to say either way, God does or does not exist. It's funny watching theists and atheists alike attack him as being "one of" the other.

 

Being open to the possibility of the existence of a deity is a position that some take so not be despised by theists who are always looking to "save souls" so that they, themselves, can get into "heaven" by doing "god's work". Atheists are "condemned to hell for all eternity" by the evangelical theists since they see them as the "spawn of satan". The irony being that if satan does exist then what better way to discredit religion than to deceive evangelicals by duping them into believing that their bible MUST be taken literally.

 

Thank you for proving me correct about your dearth of relevant subject matter knowledge WRT evolution.

There is NO EXCUSE for committing Crimes Against Humanity when it comes to innocent children. Anyone who SUPPORTS those Crimes Against Humanity is aiding and abetting the criminals involved. Inane DEFLECTIONS to other crimes that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with your BLOTUS's Crimes Against Humanity exposes the DESPERATION of his supporters to try and HIDE his crimes and the SHAME that is reflected onto themselves by supporting him.

 

Needless to say there won't be any credible substantiation for that utterly BOGUS allegation.

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

 

Exactly.
Seems kind of ironic as a belief in Satan is a belief in a deity too.