Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

This doesn't answer the question. What makes you think I don't present a view that the vast majority of atheists hold? And if we are picky about speaking for others, how come you get to make a statement that many atheists believe that 14 does not follow?

 

Sure, we can all be inconsistent, but this particular inconsistency is one that I think the vast majority of atheists could spot a mile away. It seems to me much more likely that you've just not noticed it, because the point is irrelevant to atheists (at least in the context where you see them stating 12).

 

I'm not making a fundamental moral point about what atheists are morally obliged or permitted to do here. You're not getting out of my objection by relabelling it an opinion. My point remains that it would be inconsistent not to believe 14, but it would also be inconsistent to insert 14 into any of the conversations that you've seen them have.

 

You might not be discussing God's omnibenevolence, but that is what the atheists in question are discussing. If you want to say something about what it would be consistent to say, then you need to consider it in the context in which they say it, and that is a discussion of God's omnibenevolence.
[QUOTE="JAG*, post: 1071875383, member: 68350"
Regarding your "believing":

World Atheism has NOT said they believe {14}
My view is that you have no possible way to know what
World-Atheism believes about 14 and that you do not
know what they believe.

My view is that those 4 atheists you claim said they
did believe in 14 is worth 00.00 and that you
cannot speak for the world's 500 - 750 million atheists
regarding what they believe about {14}

"According to sociologist Phil Zuckerman, broad
estimates of those who have an absence of belief
in a deity range from 500 to 750 million people
worldwide"___Wikipedia Demographics of Atheism

So?
So your vital and crucial point up there, fails.
[/QUOTE]
As pointed out before, I'm pretty confident in my view of what atheists believe, I'm relatively well read on the topic. Regardless, my actual point reflects yours here. It is central to your argument in this thread that atheists don't believe 14, so if you think that you can't speak for other people's beliefs, then your argument falls flat too.
[QUOTE="JAG*, post: 1071875383, member: 68350"
Regarding your "advocating" , , ,

, , , here is my answer:

Many atheists say the following:
{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross


Many atheists want it both ways.
They want to say that the "God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes
or is ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. They say
this in threads all the time. They base this on {6} through {12} up
there.
So? So if {6} through {12} are not true, then they ought to stop
claiming that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist is ultimately responsible
for the evil in the world.
And if {6} through {12} is true, then God is also responsible for causing
the good in the world, Hospitals, Warm Beaches, etc
[/QUOTE]
Again, this seems not like an answer. Your logic consists entirely of what atheists should/do think, and not at all of what atheists are justified in saying or adding to their discussions about God's omnipotence. You have a lot of bullet points, the central flaw that I'm pointing out is that at no point do you justify your statements (or opinions/beliefs/hopes) about what atheists should or would actually do in order to be consistent (and with what)

 

If that's true, then they can continue to discuss it for as long as
they want to. This thread is not about God's Omnibenevolence
and never will be about that. Have you considered starting your
own thread so you can discuss Atheism's views on God's
Omnibenevolence? You could title it "Atheism And God's
Omnibenevolence."

No.
Absolutely not.
This thread is not about God's Omnibenevolence.

Now regarding what I think about consistency and
inconsistency, that is in the area of my personal
opinions and I will continue to state my opinions on
what I see as an inconsistency in how many atheists
on the Internet At large, post with regard to my 1 - 14

By the way, it seems like you have made the point
about God's Omnibenevolence 5 million times in
this thread. That's not a problem I can assure
you that as long as this thread lives, I will continue
to tell you that this thread is not about God's
Omnibenevolence. We may approach 6 million
times and that will be okay. Or 7 million.
Or 8 million. Or 10 million.

_________


"According to sociologist Phil Zuckerman, broad
estimates of those who have an absence of belief
in a deity range from 500 to 750 million people
worldwide"___Wikipedia Demographics of Atheism

I coined "World-Atheism" to refer to the some 500 - 750
million atheists that the web says are in the world
of the 21st century

World-Atheism has NOT said they believe {14}
My view is that you have no possible way to know what
World-Atheism believes about 14 and that you do not
know what they believe.

My view is that those 4 atheists you claim said they
did believe in 14 is worth 00.00 and that you
cannot speak for the world's 500 - 750 million atheists
regarding what they believe about {14}

So?
So your vital and crucial point up there, fails.

But I am not confident in the correctness of what you believe
about what atheists believe.
In addition to that, what they believed has zero to do with my
opinions about them not being consistent in the way they post
regarding my 1-14

That has zero to do with my opinions that they are
inconsistent in their posting with regard to my 1-14.
And again, I am NOT primarily talking about atheists
on this Forum, rather I am talking about atheists in
general who post in forums on the Internet At Large.
I have read thousands of their posts and I know what they
say with regard to my 1-14

JAG Note:
You need to know this: I wrote my Opening Post for this
thread at a time when I was 100% unaware of what
ANY atheists here on this Forum had ever said. My
motivation for writing my Opening Post came from
my thread-argumentation with atheists on another
forum a good while ago.

What they believe or do not believe about my 14 is never
going to eliminate my opinions that many atheists are
inconsistent in their posting with regard to my 1 -14.
Not will it prevent me from continuing to present my
1 -14 and my follow-up explanations which are all
correct.

I can have and hold , , ,
personal opinions
personal views
personal expectations
personal hopes
personal desires
personal beliefs , , ,

, , , with regard to how many atheists post on the Internet At Large
with regard to my 1 -14

I disagree.
My presentation of 1 -14 with my follow-up explanations
IS the justification and all the justification that I will ever
need.
So?
So I am going to stand firm on this:

Many atheists say {1} -- {12}
{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
I Hope They Will Also Say The Following:
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

___________________________________________

"My point is NOT that God IS good or that God IS evil.
My point is that God PERFORMS both good and evil acts
based upon {6} through {14}. Remember {6} through {12}
is what atheists say --- {6} through {12} is NOT what JAG
says. I do NOT have to be consistent with a position
that I do NOT hold. But atheists do. Why? because they
DO hold {6} through {12} to be true and they DO advocate
for {6} through {12} all the time in threads."___JAG
_____________________________________________

Many atheists want it both ways.
They want to say that the "God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes
or is ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. They say
this in threads all the time. They base this on {6} through {12} up
there. They postulate that God exists for the sake of argument.
So? So if {6} through {12} are not true, then they ought to stop
claiming that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist is ultimately responsible
for the evil in the world.
And if {6} through {12} is true, then God is also responsible for causing
the good in the world, Hospitals, Warm Beaches, the Red Cross, etc
and we're back to {13} and {14} being true."___JAG



``

 

Very interesting.
Thanks for explaining.

 

My statement that 99.99% of World-Atheism does not believe
in 14 was hyperbolic -- obviously no one knows what World-Atheism
believes or does not believe about 14, but I can have my opinions on
what they believe based on what I have read in threads and in
articles written by atheists.
Also I can have my views and opinions about what I would hope they
would say about 1 -14 and I can also have a personal opinion regarding
what I personally believe they should say in order to be consistent with
their 1 -12 followed up with 13 and 14

Many atheists say {1} -- {12}
{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
I Hope They Will Also Say The Following:
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross


Many atheists want it both ways.
They want to say that the "God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes
or is ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. They say
this in threads all the time. They base this on {6} through {12}
up there. They postulate that God exists for the sake of argument.
So? So if {6} through {12} are not true, then they ought to stop
claiming that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist is ultimately responsible
for the evil in the world.
And if {6} through {12} is true, then God is also responsible for causing
the good in the world, Hospitals, Warm Beaches, the Red Cross, etc
and we're back to {13} and {14} being true."___JAG



``

 

Heck was a word commonly used in the UK when swearing itself was not generally acceptable in many circles.

 

They do. The notable thing about this thread is your assertion that they should do it differently.

I don't think I've said anything about God's omnibenevolence here (indeed, as a non-cognitivist, I have very little to say about it). My statement is about what consistencies we can expect in certain debates or from certain sides in debates, and you mentioned that in the OP of this thread, so my discussion about that seems to fit well in this thread.

The only reference here to God's omnibenevolence or discussions thereof is that that is the only context in which atheists would be interested in pursuing your points 1-12. If you have an atheist who is not discussing God's omnipotence, then they're likely not saying your points 1-12, and there is no inconsistency with also not stating 14.

Are you suggesting that the notion that it is a personal opinion makes it not subject to critical examination? It seems to me you're expecting people to speak based on principles they do not hold, that seems to me an inconsistency, and calling it an opinion doesn't change that.

Well, many atheists have never made your points 1-12, and that seemed to be the crux of your OP, so you seem to be shifting your definitions around. What does "world atheism" have to do with the arguments in this thread?

"World atheism" hasn't stated 1-12 either, so I don't see what they have to do with the discussion.

As I think I've mentioned, I don't claim to speak for "World atheism", I am only "speaking for" those atheists who will make points 1-12.

Ok, show me an atheist who has said something to that effect. The last time you listed them, you mentioned Fry, who on closer examination turns out actually does agree with 14 (but, consistent with my view, considers it irrelevant for the discussion at hand).

Careful, you may be mixing up believe and write again.

I wouldn't say so, your justifications apply just as well to my point 15 (kelp), and yet you have shown no outrage about atheists not mentioning that, so clearly you're applying some extra bit of argument that you're not disclosing.

They do indeed postulate that God exists for the sake of the argument, and that argument relies on point 12 but not point 14. Why should they postulate that God exists regarding point 14?

 

It seems to me not believing 14 would be easily recognised as inconsistent with believing 12, and while I don't speak for everyone, my guess is that the vast majority of atheists would pick up on that easily. My guess is that if you have found anyone who rejects 14, chances are they do so because it was unclear to what extent it falls under the God-exists hypothetical (or at least that the declaration of that hypothetical is being swept under the rug).

 

Is it an argument?
Or is it a personal:
opinion
hope
expectation
belief
desire

The word "arguments" is no more than a $5 dollar word for "reasons"
The word "argument" sounds "more intellectual."
1-12 with my explanations underneath are my reasons and 13 -14
are my hopes and expectations and my personal opinions about
what I view as the inconsistency of thread-atheists on the Internet
At large who DO say 1 -12 , but who do not present 13 -14 at the
time they are presenting 1 -12 {or presenting only {6} - {12}.

Or
{15} God created sand.
I can have personal opinions and hopes and desires that
atheists would mention your 15. I say give God credit
for all that He creates. Kelp too. And sand.
Introducing a neutral like {15} does not defeat my
1-14 with my explanations beneath my 1 -14.

I DO desire them to give God credit for creating kelp and sand.
By the way, there is no such thing as a neutral. Why not? Because
God has a good reason for creating whatever He did create ---which
includes everything in the Universe -- so there is no "neutral."
In other words there is no need for a {15}.
And since there is no such thing as a "neutral" then your {15
is really just another aspect of my 14 --- and my 14 would now
read like this:
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals, the Red Cross, kelp and sand.

I agree with you on that.
If the subject of the atheist's post is not on the subject of 1 - 12,
then they have no reason to include 13 -14 and in my view
would not be inconsistent to ignore 13 -14
In fact my 1 -14 makes that clear.
My 1 -14 clearly states the subject and the context which is
what atheists say particularly in 6 - 12

{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.

_______________


I Hope They Would Also Say
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

JAG

``

 

They're not discussing Omnibenevolence in this thread.
And that's a fact.
But even if they start and this thread goes to 5000 pages
that has got NOTHING to do with MY Opening Post
and my follow=up posts.

Not very "notable" in my view.
Thread-World is saturated with assertions.
So are your posts.
So are my posts.
I can and do assert my personal:
opinions
views
expectations
hopes
desires
beliefs , , ,

, , , with regard to how many atheists post on the Internet At Large
with regard to my 1 -14

Your posts are packed with your assertions.
Everybody's is.

And most welcome too.
Your "Consistency" and "expectations" are matters of subjective
opinions.
It is my opinion and my belief and view that thread-atheists who
speak-up on the subject of 6 - 12 would also speak-up for 13 and 14

However you phrase it , , ,
It is my opinion and my belief and view that thread-atheists who
speak-up on the subject of 6 - 12 would also speak-up for 13 and 14

Critical examination is okay-fine-and-dandy.
However I can learn.
To live is to learn.
This means I can "revise and extend" my position and my statements and my Opening Post.
What I write is not written in concrete, so to speak.

{1} You don't know what principles the 500 - 750 million World-Atheists hold.
{2} Your claim that you do know, is a Faith Based Claim.
{3} Your claim that you have 4 here --- is in my view, worth this: 00.00
{4} Regarding your "expecting": I have every reasonable right to
apply my opinions and hopes and desires to my own personal
expectations that if they , , ,
■ speak-up for 6 - 12
then my opinion is, if they want to be consistent, they will also , ,
■ speak-up for 13-14

Then this Opening Post and this thread is NOT for them
My Opening Post specifically makes that point.

What are you trying to do? Play "Gotcha"?
Human beings can learn as hey go along.
To live is to learn.
This means I can "revise and extend" my position and my statements and my Opening Post.
What I write is not written in concrete, so to speak
Are you trying to win here?
What is your purpose? To destroy my Opening Post?

Answer:
■ My Opening Post is about atheists in general and what
I believe they say about 1 -14
■ You do not know what World-Atheism believes about my 1 -14
■ Your claims to know are the crux of your arguments.
■ Your claims to have polled 4 atheists here are worth 00.00
as a defeater for my 1 -14 With Explanations Beneath
■ Since you do not know, and can not know, what Atheists
believe about my 1 -14 your argument, fails.
■ My Opening Post was inspired by my incessant
thread-argumentation with thread-atheists on another
Forum a good while ago --- and NOT inspired by the
atheists on this forum.

6 - 12 is the message of the "new atheists" such as
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
The late Christopher Hitchens , and to some extent
Daniel Dennett, and in my opinion
thousands of activist-thread-atheists on the Internet At large
They DO in fact present 1 - 6 in threads all the time on the Internet.
So?
So I present my 1 - 14 With Explanation Underneath.

Regarding God And 6 -12 , , ,
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.

JAG Note: They might not use "bone cancer" specifically,
they might rather list other evils and natural disasters, but
the point is that they blame the God-That-Does-Not-Exist
for all the evils and natural disasters in the world based
on 1 -6
So?
So I wrote my 1- 14 With Explanations Underneath.

My view is that you can speak ONLY for yourself.
And even if you could speak for the atheists here, that
would NOT even remotely defeat my Opening Post
and my 1-14 With Explanations Underneath.

I don't have any "outrage" about any of this. Zero.
I don't even have any "strong feelings" about it.
I present my 1 -14 With Explanations Underneath as calm as a cumber.
As calm as a cumber.
A cucumber is really calm.
It just lays there still.
It, itself, never moves around.

Here is why:

Many atheists say {1} -- {12}
{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
I Hope They Will Also Say The Following:
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

___________________________________________

"My point is NOT that God IS good or that God IS evil.
My point is that God PERFORMS both good and evil acts
based upon {6} through {14}. Remember {6} through {12}
is what atheists say --- {6} through {12} is NOT what JAG
says. I do NOT have to be consistent with a position
that I do NOT hold. But atheists do. Why? because they
DO hold {6} through {12} to be true and they DO advocate
for {6} through {12} all the time in threads."___JAG
_____________________________________________

Many atheists want it both ways.
They want to say that the "God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes
or is ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. They say
this in threads all the time. They base this on {6} through {12} up
there. They postulate that God exists for the sake of argument.
So? So if {6} through {12} are not true, then they ought to stop
claiming that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist is ultimately responsible
for the evil in the world.
And if {6} through {12} is true, then God is also responsible for causing
the good in the world, Hospitals, Warm Beaches, the Red Cross, etc
and we're back to {13} and {14} being true."

So they can be consistent.
If 6-12 is true
then
13 -14 are also true.
_________

You're using that word "should" again.
I have explained my personal:
opinions
views
expectations
hopes
desires
beliefs

____________:

"should"___Swensson

Remember JAG Previously Wrote:
Let us forever get rid of the words "ought" and "should"
and let us go ONLY with:
■ my view
■ my opinion
■ my belief
■ my hope , , ,
, , , that they will include 13 and 14

Repeat:
It is not a moral "ought" at all.
It is my view , , ,my opinion , , , my belief , , that in order for
them to be consistent they will also include 13 and 14

, , add my hope , ,

So?

So let us get rid of the word "ought" and the word "should"
because I am not saying they have a moral obligation
to include 13 and 14 , , , rather it is my
view
opinion
belief
hope

, , , that they will include 13 and 14

______

JAG

 

I don't see Graham as a particularly good representative of your religion. So, I'm not ready to accept individual quotes, as there is the ever present qualifier of the totality of his crusade for his version of Christianity and what that included.

In your quote Billy Graham seems to suggest that accepting the existence of ANY god suffices. It's not even necessary to know the NAME of Jesus, let alone take the steps Christians uniformly claim are necessary.

He mentions Islam in particular. While they do accept Jesus as a profit second only to Muhhamad (and the only human to have worked miricles, doing so through the power of God), their steps to salation don't have anything to do with Jesus. The same is true for Judaism, a religion whose members he opposed for their very existence as noted above. I do not believe he made any progress with Christianity toward accepting what he said about other religions.

I know that those of the mainline protestant Christian denomination with which I was associated at the time were absolutely not acceptinng of what he said, and suggesting that he represented Christianity in those statements is NONSENSE.

And, that covers the Abrahamic faiths. His attitude toward Vietnam certainly didn't include room for valuing Asian lives or for respecting their religions.

Whatever he said or meant, his actions show him to be a crusader for his version of Christianity, including harsh intollerance on social issues. I'll add that he did oppose overt racist acts on various occassions.

 

I'd say an argument is more well defined. An argument contains statements that work as premises, and conclusions which supposedly follow from that argument (I guess if the conclusion doesn't actually follow, it is still an argument, just not a sound or valid one). In my ear, reasons is a bit more wishy-washy, but I'm sure that depends on the circumstances.

It seems to me that you treat point 14 and 15 differently. All your points apply equally to 14 and 15, but your conclusion ("atheists should post 14") is not mirrored ("atheists should post 15"). This shows that you're using some other principle that you haven't told me about to single out 14 from statements like 15.

This is really beside the point, my point is merely that we can create statements which follow from the premises but which are not relevant in a conversation. You saw fit to leave out kelp before, just as atheists saw fit to leave out hospitals. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to be expected to write out every statement that follows from another statement made, so I don't see why you expect atheists to do that. It seems to me writing out every corollary is not good practice, and it would be unreasonable to expect it.

Do you think that for every statement made, you have to write out every corollary in order to be "consistent"? That seems to me an unreasonable standard, exemplified by the fact that you and I don't do it either.

 

I didn't say anything about "in this thread". They discuss omnibenevolence outside of this thread, and that's what you referred to in your opening post.

I think it is notable, because most of the stuff you wrote is pretty unoffensive and mostly irrelevant, whereas the idea that atheists should be consistent with ideas that you prescribe to them, and which they don't even believe, is pretty outrageous.

I don't think consistency is subjective opinion. Theft is not consistent with the law. There are no two minds about it. Expectations are subjective in one way but not another (it is true that you can subjectively expect the moon to fall to the ground, but your expectations will not come true, so you were incorrect in expecting it).

I agree that you can expect whatever you want. Only as in the moon example, you may still simply be wrong.

And I would agree, that's why I'm surprised to see you bring in "World atheism" which largely consists of people who your OP is specifically not about.

I'm trying to learn how you and people like you construct their logic. The parts where we agree, I probably already understand your logic. I learn how your ideas differ from mine by cross examining them. But yes, gotchas are a working way to find the cruxes of thought.

I thought you just said the OP is specifically not for people who don't say 6-12, which is not necessarily the same as "atheists in general" or "world atheism". It seems to me you're mixing some of those words together, and we could do with sorting them out.

True, I'm not trying to defeat your 14 points (which is why it's frustrating to see you repost them as if it answers my objections).

They have a principle for presenting 12, it is because 12 is a plausible way to argue about the existence of God, which is pretty central to atheists and what they want to say. Point 14 is not consistent with that idea, so it is consistent for atheists to omit it.

Yes, as I have said, I have not addressed the 14 points per se, I have addressed your idea that atheists should be seen posting 14, when it cannot address the questions they try to discuss.

Indeed, I'm questioning you when you try to speak for atheists about what it means to be consistent with 12. You end up trying to speak for the atheists when you suggest that you have to say 14 in order to be consistent with 12.

You're dodging my point. Your justifications apply just as well to my point 15 (kelp), and yet you have posted no threads about atheists not mentioning that, so clearly you're applying some extra bit of argument that you're not disclosing.

Yes, but that is not the same as saying that if you have a reason to state 12, then you have a reason to state 14. As I have mentioned before, I mostly do not address the truth of your 14 points, but your suggestion atheists would/should/etc state it.

I use should in a broad sense. If it is your belief that atheists will state 14, I am here to tell you that your belief is likely mistaken (in fact, I don't think you actually believe that atheists will start stating 14, I seem to recall you have even said so). If it is your hope, well, I can't argue with that, I hope to win the lottery one day, but that's not worth very much (I don't even buy lottery tickets). As for view and opinion, I imagine I would apply the same response as to "belief".

I'm struggling to see what you mean by "consistent". If consistent is saying any corollary, then consistency is an insane way of living. If consistency is finding a principle and sticking to it, then my guess is that atheists have stuck to the principle to make a coherent argument, and at that point, 14 is no longer necessary.

 

Thank you for your usual bright cheerful comments.
What you wrote really "made my day." It was so
up-lifting and positive and constructive. It made me
want to go our and make a contribution to society.

I particularly found that comment up there to be greatly
inspiring -- especially the NONSENSE with CAPS part.

By the way, I merely presented you with a Graham quote.
I made zero 00.00 suggestions about what it meant or
about what conclusions you would draw from the quote.

So I suggested nothing to you about Billy Graham. Zero

JAG

PS
/just curious

Can you name 5 human beings now living that you believe to
be good and decent and honorable people that live up to your
personal expectations of what a good decent honorable
human being ought to be like?
1
2
3
4
5


``


``

 

This has been explained to you over and over and over again.

You claim an atheist said IF there were a god, that god would be responsible for all, NOT just the good stuff.

But, the main point you missed is the "if". That atheist you claim to exist is NOT suggesting that there actually is a god.

Also, I doubt many atheists would make such an argument. The stronger argument is that the Bible says mankind can not weigh god's acts. Period.

So, any Christian claiming all the good stuff for god is ridiculous. That person's own religion denies that argument.

Nobody has to depend on "what if" type arguments. There is a clear and direct answer.

 

My Opening Post is about hope, desire, belief, expectation, views, opinion.
My Opening Post is about me merely "asking" a certain type of
atheist to do something.
Here is THE KEY to my Opening Post:
__________________________________________________________
JAG Asks In The Opening Post:
"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.___JAG

"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
______________________________________________________________


Again you will note that I merely , , ,
■ ask only {I do nothing but ask}
■ ask only a certain type of atheist to do something {asking only}
■ ask this certain type of atheist to join me in making a list of items {asking only}
■ ask this certain type of atheist to join me in a celebration {asking only}
■ ask this certain type of atheist to list both the good and bad things that God causes {asking only}
■ ask a certain type of atheist to be consistent with THEIR principle that God is Omnipotent and therefore CAUSES all things [both good & bad}
"God either causes all things or He does not cause all things"__From the Opening Post
■ title the Opening Post "Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes."

So?
So what you see clear in my Opening Post is my , , , ,
■ hope
■ views
■ expectations
■ opinions
■ desires
■ beliefs

There is nothing else in my Opening Post.

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
Etc
End quote.

_______________

Swensson, you are "seeing" more in my Opening Post, than is actually there.
There is only so much you can do with me merely asking.

Best.

JAG


``

 

This has been explained to you over and over and over and over again.
I have explained my Opening Post to you over and over again and I will
continue to do that as long as the world stands. Please continue to tell
me that atheists do not actually believe there is a God.

LOL
Really?
No kidding?
Actually?
Do you mean to tell me that atheists don't really believe there is actually a God?
That just about cracks me up.
I'm down here on the floor laughing my rear end off.

Be sure now to tell me that several more times in the days ahead, that atheists
don't really believe there is a God.

JAG

_________

Did you ever seriously consider actually reading my Opening Post?
And seriously paying attention to what it actually says?

``






``

 

No, that is a flat out falsehood.

Doesn't your religion have something to say about propagating known falsehoods?

 

/Big Grin How can you seriously object to a personal suggestion?

___________

By the way, I have NEVER made any outrageous claims regarding my Opening Post.
For example , , ,
■ I have never said or thought that atheists were being absurdly illogical.
■ I have never said or thought that atheists were being immoral.
■ I have never said or thought that atheists were being stubborn.
■ I have never said or thought that atheists were being stupid.
Take a look at those 4 points up there.
You'll be seeing them again.

__________

By the way , , ,
You're "seeing" far more in my Opening Post and in my
1 - 14 With Explanations Underneath , , ,
, , , than is actually there.

JAG.


``

 

LOL
Keep going.
Funny stuff.
________

You are engaging in Falseness.
You falsely quoted me out of context.
Doesn't your Secular Moral Code have something to say
about propagating known falsehoods? What does your
Secular Moral Code have to say about you falsely quoting
somebody out of context?

``

 

Context , , context , , context , , ,
And , ,
Reading comprehension is very important.

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
`End quote

 

Now be sure to write me a post and tell me that Stephen Fry does not
really believe there is a God.

LOL


`

 

Good point.
You are correct.
I was thinking only about the definition of the word argument.

argument - "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong"

Your explanation of argument is the better one.
P1
P2
C

I explained it.
You may have missed it. That's easy to do.
My view: There is no 15 because there are no "neutral"
elements on Earth. Everything God created has a purpose,
including kelp and sand, etc so your "15 kelp" does not
exist in my world. In other words kelp DOES have a
good purpose and THEREFORE becomes a part of
my 14 -- and I would hope that atheists would give
God credit for creating kelp , , and sand or whatever
you can think of that God created.

``