Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

Neither do atheists by literal definition.

Again, your question isn't about any specific god. Your question is about any hypothetical omnipotent god and states that if such a god was responsible for everything bad they must also be responsible for everything good (and vice versa). You've repeatedly refused to take the thread beyond the practical consequences of that logic so it can only be about the hypothetical. As you rightly say, in the context of the hypothetical, the logic you yourself expressed is indeed inescapable.

Now clearly there are practical consequences of this logic if the concept of an omnipotent god responsible for all things is applied to deities actually proposed to exist by believers. Some believers, including some Christians, do appear to make that claim of their God and so they'd need to address the logical conclusion you presented one way or another. That's why some atheists raise the issue in the first place.

Some believers (apparently yourself included) don't present their God as being responsible for all things (good or bad), in which case the logical conclusion, and thus this entire thread about it, is entirely and unconditionally irrelevant. That shouldn't prevent you unconditionally acknowledging the hypothetical logic as accurate, especially given that you're expecting others to do so. It doesn't really explain why you're so keen for atheists to acknowledge that logic though, since you don't accept the underlying logical assumptions anyway.

 

"Again, your question isn't about any specific god. Your question is about\
any hypothetical omnipotent god."__HonestJoe

That is seriously incorrect. How so?
Because my Opening Post specifically and clearly identified God as the God
of Christianity and therefore as the God of the Bible.

_________________________________________________________


JAG Previously Wrote In His Opening Post, The Following:
. . . . . .Note the bolded red and the bolded black . . . .
Start quote.
"There are some Atheists that interpret the Christian doctrine of God's
Omnipotence (He is all powerful) as meaning that God only PERMITS,
but does not CAUSE, human suffering. This thread is NOT for these
Atheists.

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 Atheists.

Some of these Atheists say that:

■ God put bone cancer in children [for example the atheist Stephen Fry says this.]
End quote.
`________________________________________________________________

So? So my use of the label "Christian" two {2} times in my Opening Post is solid
and compelling evidence that I specifically and clearly identified the God of my
Opening Post as being the God of Christianity and as being the God of the Bible.

That is correct.
Exactly and precisely correct.
This is why posters write Opening Posts.
This is why posters start threads.
Why? So they can control and limit the subjects being discussed.
This is why all Forums allow other posters who want to discuss OTHER
DIFFERENT subjects, issues, nuances, and ramifications, to go forth
and write their own Opening Post and start their own thread on what
THEY want to discuss.
I really think you need to start your own thread so you can discuss what
you want to discuss.
I say all that up there without any hostility, irritability, or cantankerousness
towards you --- none whatsoever. And I apologize if my tone sounds
hostile -- I just don't know how else to say it.

My view is that my Opening Post stands true.
_________________________________________________________________

JAG's Opening Post.
Start quote.
There are some Atheists that interpret the Christian doctrine of God's Omnipotence
(He is all powerful) as meaning that God only PERMITS, but does not CAUSE,
human suffering. This thread is NOT for these Atheists.
`
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 Atheists.

Some of these Atheists say that:

■ God put bone cancer in children [for example the atheist Stephen Fry says this.]

■ God put the COVID-19 virus upon the human race

So?

So God either causes all things or He does not cause all things.

So?

So worldwide every year there are hundreds of millions of good things that God
causes but no threads are ever started by Atheists celebrating those hundreds
of millions of good things God causes --- if God gets the blame for all the bad
things He is said to cause, then He also must get the credit for all the good
things He causes -- if you want to be
consistent, that is. And you do want to be consistent, I feel certain you do.
`
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.
`
I ask these God-Causes-All-Things Atheists to join me in listing the good things
God causes, along with the bad things they say He causes.

God either causes all things, or He does not cause all things.

If He causes all things, then God:

■ caused Polio to be cured.

■ caused all the love in the world

■ caused all the kindness in the world

■ caused all the empathy in the world

■ caused all the sympathy in the world

■ 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 of people 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

I am fully aware that atheists do not believe that God exists, and that they
argue on the basis "if God does exist."

So?

So "if God does exist" then all that up there is true. Let us celebrate all the
good that God does "if God does exist."
End quote.

_____________________________________________________________

HonestJoe,
I want to thank you for your last post, it was well-written -- much appreciated.
I also want to thank you for all your positive constructive contributions to this
thread -- they were not insignificant.
My view is that we have just about come to the end of this subject and this thread.
Maybe you and I can have some future chatting on other subjects of mutual interest.

May the Lord bless you.
May the Lord keep you safe.
May the Lord make His face shine upon you.
May the Lord always help you throughout your life.
May the Lord always protect you from harm.
May the Lord always be gracious unto you.
May the Lord give you peace.
May the Lord always protect those you love.
{Based on Numbers 6:24-27}



`

 

Where do I say what is evil?

 

More and more it looks like science is showing that free will does not exist, another place where gods cannot hide!
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/

 

It's what you said but it can't be what you meant; You're referring to a god you don't believe exists and the atheists you're addressing don't believe exists so it must be hypothetical by definition. You weren't trying to determine the true nature of God, you were trying to catch atheists in a logical conclusion you didn't think they'd want to accept (you were wrong in that but were unwilling to address the fact, which is why the thread never really went anywhere).

That isn't always true. Plenty of OPs quite intentionally ask open questions and actively encourage wide discussion of a general topic. That's essentially the point of discussion (as opposed to debate); we address questions and discuss the consequences of the potential answers. Without the latter part, the questions are meaningless.

You're obviously free to refuse to engage in any discussion but I'm also free to say that renders your entire thread meaningless and question your motives in posting it in the first place.

 

You don't know that.
You can't read minds.
But you can, and do, accuse your opponent of being dishonest.
Even when you do not know that they are.

You do not know what I am referring to --- and never have
known.

You are not The Authority On What Atheists Believe.
You didn't even know what my Opening Post said and got it
wrong -- and more than just 2 times too.
So you're not the Authority on that either.
Yet you seem to think you are.

Philosophical befuddlement is what it is.

You have zero clues regarding what I was "trying to do."
Seriously. You simply do not know. You never have known
You never will know, me thinks. At this point, that's not a
serious problem.

You don't know that.
You have no knowledge regarding what I was trying to do.

Incorrect.
I was right.
You were wrong.
You have been wrong from the very beginning in this thread.

I addressed ALL issues that needed addressing.
You most likely did not read them.
If you did read them, they did not register in your mind.
This is evidenced by some of your misinformed posts
in this thread on the subject of my Opening Post and what
it actually said -- as well as your totally misinformed posts
where you "responded" to my posts in this thread.
Your posts have been a gigantic disappointment.

That is 100% incorrect.
This thread DID go somewhere.
I see you are still here "pecking away" on your lonely keyboard.

But it IS true for this thread.

The you ought to easily be able to go and find one and start
posting in it.

That's a very nice thing to say. You're a very polite and courteous poster.
My view is that my Opening Post really "got under your skin."
My view is that my Opening Post and this entire thread is "now under your skin."
My view is that my Opening Post and this thread will "remain under you skin."
My view is that you strongly desired to refute my Opening Post and you
failed and you know fully that you failed and this knowledge makes you
unhappy --- and itchy. I think you have an itch -- an itch that you can't
quite reach and scratch.

Ah we have "Honest" Joe once again with the sly implied insults.
Ah we have "Honest" Joe once again impugning the motives of
those with whom "Honest" Joe disagrees.
By the way, I note that no matter how polite and courteous I am
to you, you still manage to work in slyly insulting comments
impugning my motives -- which impugns my character.

I am 95% reasonably certain that I am through seriously
responding to anything you post...



`

 

no Atheists says God causes all things - some Theists believe that though

 

After a dozen pages of discussion this first post still makes no sense.

Atheists don't "believe" that god did any of those things you mention or anything else.

If someone thinks god did something, then they that person isn't an atheist.

So, where's your cite for what Fry actually said?

He's famous for having answered the question "were you to meet God face to face what would you say?" Obviously, that postulates the existence of God - it does NOT suggest that he accepts there actually is a god that took or is taking action in this universe.

Fry's answer included "Bone cancer in children, what's that about? How dare you? How dare you create a world where there is such misery that's not our fault? It's utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?"

This is NOT fry suggesting there is a god who did something, obviously.

Unless you have some other cite for Fry, your OP hits me as hugely disengenuous.

 

So just ignore it.

 

I don't respond to it very often.

But, I do not appreciate the idea of the inuendos againt Fry and the other forms of false argument.

I'm more interested in that than in anything else in the thread. I'm fine with you believing there is a god, for example.

 

Nor have you very often read it carefully.
Based on your last couple of posts, it is clear to me
that you do not know what has been said in this
thread regarding your concerns.
You simply do not know.

For example you said
"This is NOT fry suggesting there is a god who did something,
obviously"___WillReadmore.
JAG Replies:
No kidding? Really? Who would have ever thought?!!
So? So its clear that you have not deep-read this thread and
do NOT KNOW what has been said.
You are unaware of the nuances within this thread
and unaware of the explanations I have posted herein.


________________

You said:
"Atheists don't "believe" that god did any of those things you
mention or anything else."___WillReadmore
JAG Replies:
No kidding? Really?! Who would have ever thought that?!!
So? So its clear that you "just jumped in" and started making
comments without being aware of all the nuances and
distinctions and explanations that have been made by
me {and atheists too} in this thread.

Yeah, well we all have a lot of stuff that we "don't appreciate."
I did not appreciate your "hugely disingenuous" remark.

There has been zero "innuendos" against Fry.
But so what if there had been?
What? Are you one of Fry's loyal fans?
Why all the huge concern for Fry?
Are you Fry's defender?

Your last couple of posts have been perfect examples of false argument.
You do not understand the Opening Post.
You are unaware of what has been actually said in this thread.
Yet you "post away" anyway.
{ And I have not made any "false arguments" in this thread.}

So you are more interested in Fry, than in anything else in this thread.
I do not doubt it. This explains your posts in this thread.
So now we're back to Fry again.
Why are you so hotly interested in defending Fry?
What has Fry ever done for you?


______________


You said:
"Unless you have some other cite for Fry, your OP hits me
as hugely disingenuous.___WillReadmore
JAG Replies:
We're back to Fry again.
So what is it with You&Fry?
By the way, this Opening Post is NOT on the subject of Fry.
Fry is mentioned one {1} time in the Opening Post.
And that one {1} mention of Fry was NOT a major point
of the Opening Post --- rather it was merely one small example
of what one atheist had said about the God-That-Does-Not-Exist.

Well, thank you very much.

_____________


You said
"If someone thinks god did something, then they that person isn't
an atheist"___WillReadmore
JAG Replies:
No kidding? Really? Who would have ever thought that?!
So? So its 100% clear to me that you do not understand
the Opening Post and do not understand what has been
said in this thread.



`

 

Sure. I think this has many influences from several angles. Secularists tend to live in cities where space is expensive, secularists tend to favour a more rigid approach to education and career (which means child success is less of a statistics game), roughly corresponding to more parental investment. Secularists (as well as religious people) live in a world in which child mortality is lower than it was when those quotes were written.

Then there is the aspect of how many children we should be having. I don't want to attribute secular small families with an unselfish concern for overpopulation and resource management, but it's certainly convenient that the secular approach is more consistent with a sustainable future.

 

What follows is at least related indirectly to your comment.
I post it not to argue with you. {But we can if you want to.}
But as a cheerful up-ward mobile positive constructive.
What triggered this post was your phrase "a sustainable
future."

My view is that the future of the Human Race is going to
be characterized by amazing ABUNDANCE and by the
reality that its GETTING BETTER ALL THE TIME.

On that cheerful note I am re-reading a book titled "Its Getting Better
All The Time: 100 Greatest Trends Of The Last 100 Years, by Stephen
Moore and Julian Simon. Here are a couple of comments from the
blurbs:

"A refreshing breath of optimism and sanity amidst all the gloom
and doom."__John Stossel
ABC News

"This book is so chock full of good news that it's virtually
guaranteed to cheer up even the clinically depressed.
Moore and Simon dismantle the doomsday pessimism
that's still so commonplace in academia and the media
. The evidence they present is irrefutable: Give people
freedom and free enterprise and the potential for human
progress is seemingly limitless."__Lawrence Kudlow,
Chief Economist, CNBC

____________________

I am reading another book that is cheerful and uplifting
to the human sprit. The title is Abundance : The Future Is
Better Than You Think by Peter H. Diamandis and Steven
Kotler. {They are on You Tube too.}

Here are a few quotes from the blurbs on the back cover:

"This brilliant must-read book provides the key to the
coming era of abundance replacing eons of scarcity.
Abundance is a powerful antidote to today's malaise
and pessimism."___Ray Kurzweil

"This is an audacious and powerful read! Abundance shows
us how today's philanthropists, innovators, and passionate
entrepreneurs are more empowered than ever before to solve
humanity's grand challenges."___ Jeff Skoll

"Our world faces multiple crises and is awash in pessimism.
Abundance redirects the conversation. spotlighting scientific
innovators working to improve people's lives. The result is
more than a portrait of brilliant minds -- it's a reminder of the
infinite possibilities for doing good when we tap into our own
empathy and wisdom."___ Arianna Huffington

One more quote from the inside cover:

"Since the dawn of humanity, a privileged few have lived
in stark contrast to the hardscrabble majority. Conventional
wisdom says this gap cannot be closed. But it is closing -- fast."

______________

JAG Note: Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think has
386 pages and is a gripping read especially if you love people
and have an interest in the future and have a continual prayer
in your heart to God that He will increasingly bless and provide
for His people all over this world that He has created.

I personally have a keen interest in the future and in helping
organizations that are helping people. Not only does my wife
and I support our local Baptist Church with our tithes and
offerings, but we also support Compassion International by
sponsoring a child in one of the Third World countries. In
addition to that we help support Samaritan's Purse which
has as it's motto "Helping In Jesus Name.

God has blessed America with an $18 trillion dollar annual
economy, and I thank God for that. It has been said that
"There is no limit to what God will do for the man that will
use what God has given him to help others."
"Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed
down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into
your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured
to you." Luke 6:38

You cannot out give God.

______________

Thought For Today.

"Shop long and often.
Get two {2} shopping carts.
Fill 'em up.
Piled high and running over.
The general rule of thumb is
if at least 4 items, in both carts,
do not fall out and hit the floor
on your way to the check-out
counter --- you need to go back
and put some more stuff in those
carts."___JAG

. . . LOL . . .

`

 

Jesus said far more about the poor than the wealthy. In fact,he had several strong messaes for the wealthy to drematically change their direction.

Today in America, the wealth gap is worsening. Even the middle class is now affected, and those at the bottom are seeing the same level of improvement that they have for decades - 0%.

So, I really don't know what the heck you're talking about.

 

Well, depending on which rabbit hole a particular discussion is going down, it will require/warrant different caveats, explanations, examples etc.. For instance, I don't believe there is such a thing as omnibenevolence, in that I don't believe there is an undeniable definition of goodness. So, yes, I could agree that God is responsible for all good things if he created the universe, but there is a risk that that statement becomes meaningless or easily misinterpreted.

 

I'm referring to the debate about the existence of God in general, not just this thread.

You seem to be avoiding the point of my post though. Your point is that you expect/suggest that atheists celebrate things that God has done in the hypothetical that he does exist. However, outside of an argument of evil, that hypothetical is irrelevant to atheists. You gave examples of other things that are true but not relevant, and it seems to me that atheists consistently mention neither.

I'm not sure why we're posting past each other. I have given a suggestion of what I think is the missing link in your argument (why would celebration follow from your observation) yet you just repeat the conclusions I already agree with (or that I have given reasons to disagree with) instead of facing the issue I've brought up. If there is a point I'm not meeting, feel free to point it out and I'll answer it. Agreeing to disagree seems to be a poor solution when we're perfectly capable of identifying what the disagreement is about.

 

Abundance : The Future Is Better Than You Think by Peter
H. Diamandis and Steven Kotler.

Here is a quote from the inside cover:

"Since the dawn of humanity, a privileged few have lived
in stark contrast to the hardscrabble majority. Conventional
wisdom says this gap cannot be closed. But it is closing -- fast.

No to Doom, Gloom, Pessimism.

Abundance : The Future Is Better Than You Think by Peter H.
Diamandis and Steven Kotler.

Here are a few quotes from the blurbs on the back cover:

"This brilliant must-read book provides the key to the
coming era of abundance replacing eons of scarcity.
Abundance is a powerful antidote to today's malaise
and pessimism."___Ray Kurzweil

"This is an audacious and powerful read! Abundance shows
us how today's philanthropists, innovators, and passionate
entrepreneurs are more empowered than ever before to solve
humanity's grand challenges."___ Jeff Skoll

"Our world faces multiple crises and is awash in pessimism.
Abundance redirects the conversation. spotlighting scientific
innovators working to improve people's lives. The result is
more than a portrait of brilliant minds -- it's a reminder of the
infinite possibilities for doing good when we tap into our own
empathy and wisdom."___ Arianna Huffington

"Since the dawn of humanity, a privileged few have lived
in stark contrast to the hardscrabble majority. Conventional
wisdom says this gap cannot be closed. But it is closing -- fast.

From:
Abundance : The Future Is Better Than You Think by Peter
H. Diamandis and Steven Kotler.

"Its Getting Better All The Time: 100 Greatest Trends Of The Last
100 Years, by Stephen Moore and Julian Simon.

Here are a couple of comments from the blurbs:

"A refreshing breath of optimism and sanity amidst all the gloom
and doom."__John Stossel ABC News

"This book is so chock full of good news that it's virtually
guaranteed to cheer up even the clinically depressed.
Moore and Simon dismantle the doomsday pessimism
that's still so commonplace in academia and the media
. The evidence they present is irrefutable: Give people
freedom and free enterprise and the potential for human
progress is seemingly limitless."__Lawrence Kudlow,
Chief Economist, CNBC


`

 

Saying it many times over doesn't make it true.

In the USA, the wealth gap is widening and has been for a long time.

And, the same is true for the income gap.

There are known policies we have followed that have exacerbated that problem.

We could change those policies if we wanted to.

 

Missed this before, but I'll tackle it now. There is no denying that the A-theory of time *feels* right and that the B-theory seems counterintuitive without some kind of evidence . . . then again, if we just stopped there, we'd all be flat earthers. The earth looks kind of flat from where we are. Feels right. So why consider the evidence?

The problem with the A-theory of time is that we have concrete observations, mathematical proofs, and thought experiments that demonstrate that time is relative, and time being relative is incompatible with the A-theory of time, instead indicating that the B-theory is true. If you've ever used GPS, then you are using satellites that have to account for time dilation. The closer an object is to a massive object (compared to objects in other inertial frameworks) and the faster it is accelerating (compared to other inertial frameworks), then more slowly time passes for that object (again, compared to other frameworks).

The passage of time is relative, and it depends on physical factors. The problem with this is:

1) That means there is no such thing as a universal past/present/future shared by all objects in the universe.
2) Because of this, at a large enough scale, even the order of events isn't universal, with the order changing for some events depending on your inertial framework.

The A-theory of time simply can't be reconciled with modern physics. Embracing it because it seems intuitive and it feels right means abandoning empirical fact.

 

If you want to quote someone, you should give a cite.

Your claims about Fry are well off the mark as I pointed out.

Your first post doesn't include anything that any other person who calims to be an atheist has ever said.

So, the fact is, Fry is 100% of your evidence, and it is false.

And again, if someone thinks god caused something, then that person isn't an atheist.

 

We know that there was intelligence involved in making a Rolex watch.

The WAY we know that is that we STUDIED THE TOPIC!!

We DID NOT apply some sort of theistic complexity theory where if it looks harder than X to do, then god must have done it.

In fact, if someone showed a Rolex watch to someone who is unaware of modern technology and materials, but who does believe in some sort of active supernatural being, they may well decide that the Rolex was made by THEIR supernatural being. After all, they didn't have an opportunity to do the research on how and why rolexes are made.

If we want to know how eyes came about, we can study that, too.

We need to keep to a minimum the times we choose to stop looking and simply decide god did it. Let's hope that NO important questions get treated like that.

 

Based on your posts, it is clear to me that you do not know
what has been said in this thread regarding your concerns.
You simply do not know. You are unaware of the nuances
within this thread and unaware of the explanations I have
posted herein.

So its clear that you "just jumped in" and started making
comments without being aware of all the nuances and
distinctions and explanations that have been made by
me {and atheists too} in this thread.

You are unaware of what has been actually said in this
thread. Yet you "post away" anyway.

You previously said said I had made false arguments.
I have not made any "false arguments" in this thread.

You said you were more interested in Fry than in anything
else in this thread. This explains your nonsensical posts in
this thread.

You can't get Fry off your mind. So what is it with You & Fry?

By the way, this Opening Post is NOT on the subject of Fry.
Fry is mentioned one {1} time in the Opening Post.
And that one {1} mention of Fry was NOT a major point
of the Opening Post --- rather it was merely one small example
of what one atheist had said about the God-That-Does-Not-Exist.

You said
"If someone thinks god did something, then they that person isn't
an atheist"___WillReadmore
JAG Replies:
No kidding? Really? Who would have ever thought that?!
So? So its 100% clear to me that you do not understand
the Opening Post and do not understand what has been
said in this thread.

 

We also know there was Intelligence involved in making this Universe.

You go into a Super Walmart Store and you go into a Super Mall, like
The Mall Of America, and you look at what is on the shelves.

You pause and reflect upon the numerous varieties of raw materials
used to make the hundreds of thousands of material objects found in
those stores and in the world at large --- from paper clips to huge ocean
going cruise ships and aircraft carriers and Boeing 747's.

You pause and think about the almost unfathomable number of material
objects humans have made from the raw materials (eg. steel, copper, iron)
that go into the construction of all the infrastructure that makes up all the
buildings and skyscrapers in all the cities of the entire world. New York City,
London, Atlanta, Paris, Brussels, and many thousands of other cities and
towns worldwide. .

You stop and reflect upon the millions of different kinds of material objects
that have existed and do now exist throughout the world --- objects that
allow us to both do the world's work and to relax and enjoy life.

It is nonsensical and irrational to believe all that above was produced by
non-intelligent natural processes -- this is why billions of human beings
find that to be incredible.

___________________


Here are some raw materials and some objects that man made from raw
materials. It is irrational to believe that non-intelligent natural processes
produced or made possible all of this:

Lead, tin, copper, bauxite, iron ore, raw latex, crude oil, coal, cotton, trees,
granite, gems, mercury, zinc, glass, paper clips, rubies, chemicals, potassium,
topaz, diamonds, titanium, nickel, plastics, paper, jasper, lumber, natural gas,
minerals, steel, corn, grain, gasoline, milk, vegetables, fish, meat, dairy
products, fruit, sapphires, cell phones, computers, refrigerators, concrete,
etc
`
The world of untold millions of different kinds of raw materials and physical
objects made by humans from those raw materials, and the way they co-exist
together allowing humans to build the modern world as it exists today --displays
a staggering amount of Intelligent Design.
`
It is unreasonable, illogical, and nonsensical to believe that all that up there
was produced by natural processes apart from an Intelligent Mind.



`

 

We "know" no such thing. You theorizing does not mean we know.

 

You must believe that it does because you repeat your
"Fry point" and your "atheists don't really believe in God."
point, over and over again and again -- even though my
posts in this thread address your concerns sufficiently.
nonetheless you prefer to repeat your "Fry point" and
your "atheists don't really believe in God" point --- so
keep on doing that. Its harmless enough.