Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

I admitted no such thing.

There has been no dishonesty on my part.

You are not The Authority On What Is, Or Is Not,
An Honest Discussion.

Our exchanges have never risen to the level of
sincere debate. I have no expectations that they
ever will do that -- and that is NOT a problem for
me --, not even slightly.

You are my ideological adversary and everything
you write has to be interpreted in light of the fact
that you are my ideological adversary. Asking you
what you think of me, is like asking Lex Luther
what he thinks of Superman. Or asking The Joker
what he thinks of Batman. How so? Well you do
understand the concept of an ideological enemy,
do you not.?

Your continued use of ad hominem is duly noted.

__________


Bible Verse For Today: {Regarding the Death of God's people}

"The righteous perish, and no one takes it to heart; the devout
are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous
are taken away to be spared from evil. Those who walk
uprightly enter into peace; they find rest as they lie in
death."___Isaiah 57:1-2

Compare
"Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his faithful
servants."__Psalm 116:15


`

 

At no point did I use an ad hominem argument. You have. It is not a matter of opinion that this is a fallacy. It is, objectively, a fallacy. If petty tribalism matters more to you than the truth, then feel free to continue down that path. I'll stick with truth and evidence while you continue failing to meet those standards with your arguments.

 

You are not the Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Logical.

No. I am not.

No. I have admitted no such thing.
You are not The Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Logical.

No.
That is incorrect.
You are not The Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Rational.

__________

Thought For Today:

Richard Dawkins is an embarrassment to some in the atheist
community. The atheist philosopher Michael Ruse says that
Richard Dawkins makes him ashamed to be an atheist.


`

 

I've already tried to explained why I said it, you're just ignoring the explanation. One more time, in the form of two simple questions;

1) Does your OP ask people to state that an omnipotent god would be responsible for all good things as well as all bad things?
2) Are you willing to state that an omnipotent god would be responsible for all bad things as well as all good things?

 

Petty tribalism does not mean more to me than the truth.
Neither one of us is The Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, The Truth.

 

You failed.
If you truly want the answer re-read the thread.

 

I know the answer, I was seeing if you were willing to admit it. You were asking people to make a statement that you don't actually believe is true.

 

I don't think you do.

Willing to admit it?

I've have been stating it and re-stating it over and over.

You know how it goes

It sometimes starts off like this:

{1} I live by Faith.

{2} I am a Christian.

{3} Christianity is a Faith.

{4} Christianity is not an intellectual system.

{5} Christianity cannot be demonstrated true with
arguments that rise to the certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4.

{6} Christianity cannot be demonstrated true with Logic and Empiricism.

{7} Christianity can present some rational argumentation but there
will be no 2 + 2 = 4 level of certainty --- only arguments that claim to
enjoy high levels of Probability-Plausibility --- which are going to be
saturated with human subjectivity aka human biases, prejudices, and
presuppositions. So? So no certain proof.

{8} Here at this point I tell you about my FAITH based views on human
Free Will being 100% responsible for ALL the evil in the world including
natural disasters and bone cancer in children and William Rowe's
"surplus suffering" eg. the fawn that gets burned in a forest fire set by
a lighting strike and suffers for 3 days -- you know the "God is responsible
for animal suffering" thingy.

By the way, not a word of that up there was a copy/paste job --- I wrote it
all just now just for you. So what do you want? How much clearer can I
be?

__________


{9} So are you just lonely? You want somebody to talk to? You look up
there at your Notifications Box and you see no numbers. So you think,
"Ah Let me go and rattle JAG's chain and see if I can't get him to write
me a post'? Is that it?

{10} If you'll get off the insults --- I will talk to you. If you keep telling me
that I am dishonest then I'm not going to talk to you much. Also stop
telling me what the debate rules are. I don't do that to you. You, and
not me, were the first one to bring up the "dishonest" thingy. You, not
me, were the one that told me the "what you can't do" thingy.



`

 

Ok, so as you may have seen, I quoted a bunch of people who have made arguments from evil, and asked them specifically if they acknowledge God doing good things. I only got responses so far from Etbauer, HonestJoe and yardmeat (and obviously myself, plus Fry's throwaway comment), but that number should give a reasonable indication. Not all of those are card-carrying atheists, but they have presented arguments which in the right hypotheticals are equivalent to the God-is-evil argument. Even though all of their arguments were slightly different, all of them acknowledge that God (supposedly) have done good things.

Of course, they all clarify that the fact that God may have done good things are either irrelevant or insignificant next to God's supposed evil deeds. You should be careful with how you interpret these statements, because from memory, it seems that you slide in other pieces of argument under the radar, like concluding that some kind of "celebration" is warranted and say (maybe jokingly) that you expect

"many" atheists posting about some of the good things.​

In the end, it seems to me, you hardly believed you'd find anyone who argued that God is evil while acknowledging the good, when in fact, it seems like the vast majority do. If that makes you over-joyed, then I worry that you read in conclusions to these facts that aren't actually there.

 

I believe you asked me to comment on this bit.

No exactly sure what to comment about here. Given how picky we were before about what is on topic, I'm not sure how much this relates to the topic.

To some extent yes, religions of various kinds are probably able to out-breed secular ideas, and that will have an impact on demographics and politics.

That being said, secular views in today's day and age does not spread primarily by births. If birth numbers were the be-all end-all, secularism would not be in the state it is today. There are many factors in how secularism has spread, and it seems to me, similar things will happen in the future (arguably more so, when ideas spread more easily). It also impacts people who don't leave their religions, there are many Christians who will put "Christian" on a poll and might go to church but for all other practical and political purposes are secular.

Similarly, Muslim are birth rates are high, but it is not clear to me that that won't change too, like it has for Christianity. As living standards increase, health situation improves, as well as some aspects of social status etc. fertility rates go down. It takes a while (because the changes need to permeate culture as well) but in a long term, it will certainly change. The ideas of Islam, especially outside of the traditionally Muslim world is also going to have a considerable overhaul on that time scale.

There is no straight answer (mostly because I think there wasn't a straight question) but all in all, I'm still waiting to see what the future brings.

 

Swensson, thank you for your post up there.

You say, "all of them {the atheists you mentioned} acknowledge that God (supposedly) have done
good things."__Swensson

You say, "Of course, they all clarify that the fact that God may have done good things are either
irrelevant or insignificant next to God's supposed evil deeds"___Swensson

That HUGE list of good things that God has done may be "irrelevant" or "insignificant" to THEM, but
not irrelevant or insignificant to humanity --- to some 7.5 billion human beings who would soon literally
die without the goodness and benefits within that HUGE list of the good things God has done.

My view: My Opening Post absolutely logically compels atheists to hold that if the God of the Bible does
evil things then He also does a HUGE number of good things. There is no possible way to Logically escape
this conclusion.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Everything in this block is designated as {AAA}
Any atheists that want to conclude that if God does just one {1} evil thing, then He is not good {not Omnibenevolent}
are free to conclude that, nonetheless the God of the Bible still has done a HUGE list of good things. So? So even
if they conclude that the God of the Bible is not Omnibenevolent {good} nonetheless they MUST ALSO
conclude that He has still nonetheless done the following:

■ caused all the hospitals in the world to be built

■ caused all the charities in the world to come to exist

■ caused all the homes that exists to be built

■ caused the Center For Disease Control to come to exist

■ caused the World Health Organization to come to exist

■ caused all the Super Walmart Stores and Sam's Clubs to come to exist

■ and caused every single thing that is a good thing, to come to exist

____________________________________________________________


Questions:
Why is it important to establish {AAA} above?.
Answer: Because {AAA} is the truth.
Atheists DO want to believe the truth.
Okay here ii is again: {AAA} is the truth.
Why do atheists believe that the city of New York exists?
Why do atheists believe that Julius Caesar was a historical person?
Answer: Because both propositions are true.
{AAA} is also the truth and ought to be believed.
Again why? Because {AAA} is the truth.
That's it. {AAA} is either true or false.
{AAA} is not false, but true.
So? So believe {AAA} for the truth that it is.
Believe truth for the sake of truth.
That's it. No other reason.
True is true.
False is false.
{AAA} is true.
So grab it.
Believe it.

More later . . .




`

 

Yes. Does that mean you are also accepting this "inescapable logical conclusion" that an omnipotent God would be responsible for all good things and all evil things?

 

Hospitals for all the sick people he caused!
Charities because of all the wars, famines, cancer etc he has caused!
Left millions homeless because he has not built enough houses!
Center for disease that he has caused!
Created ill health
And caused the holocaust, famine, murder, paedophilia, pervert priests, rapists,serial killers, etc etc.
It is almost like if such a god existed he created pain so that we might praise him for when he stops it, bit of a tanker if you ask me!

All because he is alleged to be a loving and caring god!
Enjoy your evil god, mankind can do without those who worship such rubbish!

The question you never answered still stands,
Why should I celebrate the father that sends me to school, buys my food and clothes, takes me on holiday looks after my every need but beats and rapes my Mother and sister every night?

 

"and obviously myself"___Swensson

Based on your "and obviously myself" and upon what I
bolded red in your post, it seems reasonable to conclude
that you personally have also reached the same
conclusions as you believe the people you listed have
reached. Do you have a comment on that?

By the way, I think you have seriously interacted
with my Opening Post from the very beginning.
Much appreciated.

There is noting profound going on in my Opening Post.
The proposition is a very simple one. Now regarding
what conclusions can be drawn ? That is an entirely
different subject. My Opening Post is NOT on that
subject. Most any proposition's ramifications can create
endless philosophical "rabbit trails" leading down into
"rabbit holes" that take the questioner-seeker into
to The Realm Of Philosophical Befuddlement
or perhaps into the realm Of Philosophical
Enlightenment.

 

No, not for all the evil things.

I have been explaining that and re-explaining it over and over.
{ See {8} below to read it in a nutshell }

Here it is again:

You know how it goes

It usually starts off like this:

{1} I live by Faith.

{2} I am a Christian.

{3} Christianity is a Faith.

{4} Christianity is not an intellectual system.

{5} Christianity cannot be demonstrated true with
arguments that rise to the certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4.

{6} Christianity cannot be demonstrated true with Logic and Empiricism.

{7} Christianity can present some rational argumentation but there
will be no 2 + 2 = 4 level of certainty --- only arguments that claim to
enjoy high levels of Probability-Plausibility --- which are going to be
saturated with human subjectivity aka human biases, prejudices, and
presuppositions.

{8} Here at this point I tell you about my FAITH based views on human
Free Will being 100% responsible for ALL the evil in the world including
natural disasters and bone cancer in children and William Rowe's
"surplus suffering" eg. the fawn that gets burned in a forest fire set by
a lighting strike and suffers for 3 days -- you know the "God is responsible
for animal suffering" thingy.

___________________


1) "Does your OP ask people to state that an omnipotent god would be
responsible for all good things as well as all bad things?___HonestJoe

My opening Post is specifically addressed only to a specific type of atheist.
Not addressed to atheists who do not say that God caused all things.
Not addressed to people in general.
Not addressed to Christians to any extent.
Yes my OP asks a specific kind of atheist to state what you said.

2) Are you willing to state that an omnipotent god would be responsible for
all bad things as well as all good things?___HonestJoe
On atheism, yes.
On Christianity, no. {see my {8} above.}


`

 

It's not that it is insignificant or irrelevant to them, it's that it is insignificant or irrelevant to the argument from evil, which is the topic in question when they argue that God would be evil. Once we stop talking about the argument from evil, then atheists aren't even talking about the hypothetical that God exists, so again, it would be irrelevant.

You seem to be confusing the act of thinking something with the idea of stating it over and over. Your example is New York existing, and indeed, I bet the vast majority of atheists believe that New York exists, yet they don't see the need to state it in this debate, because it is irrelevant.

In this context, it is true that New York exists, but it does not follow that it is important to establish it, especially not when there are more interesting and more on-topic things to discuss.
Similarly, atheists think that it is true that "if God existed he would be responsible for many things that are good", but it does not follow that it needs establishing (and certainly not "celebrating"), when it makes no difference to the question at hand.

 

I did and thanks for your comments. You made, as always, some
interesting points. I read carefully all you wrote.

It was merely a brief aside so anything you say is gonna be
just peachy dandy -- it'll give me something to think about.

There is something about Faith that encourages humans to
desire to re-produce and create new lives. There is something
about Secularism that discourages humans from doing that --
because Secular Humanists do not characteristically have
large families.

I think the texts sacred to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism
emphasize the importance of bringing children into the
world and also emphasize bringing MANY children into the
world. Here are 3 from the Bible that could suggest doing
that:

Psalm 127:3-5
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the
womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the
children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver
with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks
with his enemies in the gate

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and
multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion
over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens
and over every living thing that moves on the earth.
(Many Christians take this as a command from God.}

Proverbs 17:6
Grandchildren are the crown of the aged, and the glory of
children is their fathers.

More later . . .


`

 

It is income that drives birth rates, little to do with faith or secularism.

Income and fertility is the association between monetary gain on one hand, and the tendency to produce offspring on the other. There is generally an inverse correlation between income and the total fertility rate within and between nations. The higher the degree of education and GDP per capita of a human population, subpopulation or social stratum, the fewer children are born in any industrialized country.[3] In a 1974 UN population conference in Bucharest, Karan Singh, a former minister of population in India, illustrated this trend by stating "Development is the best contraceptive."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

Religion tends to grow in areas of high poverty and poor education hence it can appear that those with faith reproduce more.

 

Swensson, my view is that we're not having a debate,
rather we are "posting past each other" on our way to
re-stating and re-stating and re-stating the same points
over and over again.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Thanks again for your contributions to this thread.


`

 

Then you can't call it an inescapable logical conclusion since you're escaping it yourself.

We're not discussing Christianity, we're discussing the abstract concept of an omnipotent god.

So it's a literal double standard. Non-Christians are required to follow logic but Christians aren't. That isn't how logic works. It either applies or doesn't, it can't be different based on what the observer believes.

The fact it that you're free to accept anything you want on the bass of faith (as is everybody else) but you can't expect anyone else to unconditionally accept it as valid outside the context of that faith. Basically, anything you believe about your God on the basis of faith is entirely irrelevant to the question you asked in your OP. If you ask a logical question, you have to accept the logical answer.

 

Another theist who wants to preach not debate! Clearly if there was a god and it created all that was good then it would also of created all that is evil, I realised this at primary school when we were forced by christians to sing "all things bright and beautiful!".

 

I cannot see anyway out of it, if a god created everything then it created evil, that is the only logical answer.

 

who are you to say whats evil? whats evil to the mouse is lunch for the kitty

 

That is incorrect.
Here is why:
My Opening Post said this:
_________________________________________________________________
JAG Wrote In His Opening Post The following With CAPS As Appears Below:
"There are some Atheists that interpret the Christian doctrine of God's Omnipotence
(He is all powerful) as meaning that God not only PERMITS, but also CAUSES, all
human suffering. These Atheists say that Christianity demands that we say that God
CAUSES . . .ALL. . . that comes to pass in human history. This thread IS for these Atheist

So if God is Omnipotent and CONTROLS and CAUSES . . .ALL . . things, therefore all the
hundreds of millions of acts of kindness that occur worldwide every year are caused by
God --- and everything else that is a good thing."___JAG
__________________________________________________________________

So?
So it is NOT my claim that God CAUSES all things.
It has NEVER been my claim that God CAUSES all things.
I have said from the very beginning that I do NOT believe that God CAUSES all things.
I have said from the very beginning that my Opening Post was directed ONLY to
those atheists that DO say that God CAUSES all things.
You have read that SEVERAL times but it did not register in your mind.
I have explained to you SEVERAL times that my position is that man's FREE WILL CAUSED
ALL the evil and natural disasters in the world.
So?
So the Opening Post is NOT addressed TO ME, or to other Christians or to "people"
rather the Opening Post is addressed ONLY to this specific kind of atheists:

Here it is again:
_________________________________________________________________
JAG Wrote In His Opening Post The following With CAPS As Appears Below
"There are some Atheists that interpret the Christian doctrine of God's Omnipotence
(He is all powerful) as meaning that God not only PERMITS, but also CAUSES, all
human suffering. These Atheists say that Christianity demands that we say that God
CAUSES . . .ALL. . . that comes to pass in human history. This thread IS for these Atheist

So if God is Omnipotent and CONTROLS and CAUSES . . .ALL . . things, therefore all the
hundreds of millions of acts of kindness that occur worldwide every year are caused by
God --- and everything else that is a good thing."___JAG
_________________________________________________________________

Do you understand that it is NOT now and has NEVER been my claim that
God CAUSES all things?
I do not think that you do.
I do not think that you will.
I am not sure that you want to.
I do not know how to make it any clearer to you.
I will try again:

It is NOT my claim that God CAUSES all things.
It has NEVER been my claim that God CAUSES all things.
I have said from the very beginning that I do NOT believe that God CAUSES all things.
I have said from the very beginning that my Opening Post was directed ONLY to
those atheists that DO say that God CAUSES all things.
You have read that SEVERAL times but it did not register in your mind.
I have explained to you SEVERAL times that my view is that man's FREE WILL CAUSED
ALL the evil and natural disasters in the world.
So?
So the Opening Post is NOT addressed TO ME, or to other Christians or to "people"
rather the Opening Post is addressed ONLY to a specific kind of atheist as explained
up-post.


`

 

"I have said from the very beginning that I do NOT believe that God CAUSES all things.
I have said from the very beginning that my Opening Post was directed ONLY to
those atheists that DO say that God CAUSES all things."

???

By definition, atheists don't believe god caused anything.