Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

Nah, I ain't buying that. You'll have to sell that to somebody else.
First there is no such thing as "15 kelp" as I explained up-thread.
Second even if there was a "kelp corollary" that would not be
at the same comparison level with such as , ,
The bad , , ,
"bone cancer in children"
"the COVID-19 virus"

The good , , ,
"all the love and kindness in the world"
"Polio was cured"

JAG

``

 

"which they don't even believe"___Swensson
That is incorrect.
They DO believe what I say they believe, that is the ones that I am talking about 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.
`End quote.

 

Swensson,
Please permit me to pay you some compliments.
■ I know one thing, you'd be a very good man to go
to war with, I mean to have beside you in a foxhole.
■ You don't know the meaning of the phrase "give up."
■ You don't know the meaning of the word "quit." , , lol ,
■ You have that English "Bulldog determination." {think of Old Winston C}
■ You have "warrior soul."
■ And to add to all that, you are a polite and courteous
gentlemen.
■ ■ Which brings me to me. You are more of a polite
gentlemen than I am. Here let me apologize to
you for some of my , , oh I don't what to call it,
I'll just say I apologize for the times where I may
have irritated you. I am aware that I can be irritating
at times.
JAG

``

 

You stated that a person said something that they did NOT say.

Stephen Fry did NOT say that.

You need to stick to the truth here, regardless of WHAT your religious views allow.

 

YOU need to stick with the truth.
You are engaging in Falseness.
You falsely quoted me out of context. for one thing.
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?

__________
For another thing , , ,
I know very well exactly what Stephen Fry said.
I listened to the video.
I can go get it on You Tube.
The interviewer asked Fry what he would say if he died
and went to Heaven and found out there was really a God?

And Fry said that if he met God, he would "ask God, why he
put bone cancer in children, what's that all about?"

So you don't know what you're talking about. And that is a fact.

JAG

 

Stephen Fry is an excellent example of a man persecuted by the revolting morals of fundamentalists who are obsessed with what other people do in bed!

 

Let's take the example of Alan Turin, fundamentalists would have us believe that their god created this amazing mind that saved more lives in WW2 shortening the war by an estimated 2 years. This god of theirs created this mind with a fatal flaw according to his law, he loved other men so he was convicted of the crime of loving the wrong person according to revolting fundamentalist morals. I find this story revolting and the people who would follow such a god are in my opinion very sick.

 

No.
You are incorrect.
Not inconsistent if their conversations were about 6 -12
And if their conversations were NOT about 6 -12, then
I do NOT call upon them to also include 14

You are ignoring what my Opening Post actually says.
See below

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.
`End quote.

_______________________

JAG Note:
Swensson, this {up-post & down-post} is never going to go away. Never.

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.
I would hope they also include 13 and 14
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

Some atheists want it both ways.
{Atheists do not believe that God exist but they postulate
that God exist for the sake of argument.}
They 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

JAG

 

I'd be inclined to agree. I mostly try to make a point out of responding with less text than what I responded to, so that discussions don't spiral out of control (I don't follow this perfectly, indeed this post won't adhere to it). That being said, I think the natural way for threads to end is for us to pin down where our disagreement comes from and assess those points.

 

Ok, here maybe we're getting somewhere. You mention a "level" of comparison. Who choses what that level is, and how we assess it? And how come when I ask you why "all the kindness in the world" was relevant, this "level" of comparison didn't come up before? Do you think an atheist who is trying to discuss the problem of evil would use the same interpretation of level of comparison as you?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
I guess argument can also mean for instance a disagreement (regardless of how it is carried out) but that is not the sense in which I use it.

No, I saw it, it just didn't actually respond to my question. Indeed, it seems that my addition of "neutral" doesn't matter. We can consider the same question without the word "neutral".

You didn't ask atheists to write about kelp (be it evil, good, neutral or otherwise). I think it makes sense for atheists not to talk about it, and thus, it is also sensible for your not in particular hope/expect/believe/request that atheists should post about it. I would apply the same logic to the good that God supposedly does, but you do not. Wherein lies the difference, and does that difference actually hold if the atheist is discussing a point to which 14 makes no difference?

 

In response to the OP:

If God causes all things, then yes, he is responsible for all that is good and all that is bad. He causes all suffering, and all relief from suffering. He causes all disease and all cures and treatments. He causes all pain and all joy. He causes racism. He causes homophobia as well as the fact that some are homosexual, and he also causes anti-racism and pro-gay rights actions.

That's a really good point. Why is it that Christians invariably thank God for the good, but never hold God accountable for the bad?

It also would make sensible the idea of prayer, and asking God to intercede on your behalf and make things happen. But as George Carlin said, if there is a divine plan, then praying to God and asking him to change that plan, for you, seems mighty impositional and rude.

And since God's "miracles" and "anti-miracles" (is that a word?) appear arbitrary, regardless of prayer (studies actually find a slight reverse correlation with prayer), and with no apparent moral reasoning on who suffers from horrible disease or natural disaster and who doesn't.... what should that tell us about God's moral character?

Also, If God causes all things to happen, then we don't have free will.

Also, atheists don't believe God exists, so for them this is nothing but an intellectual exercise, and they can only answer such questions in regard to what theists believe, which changes from theist to theist, so this question should really be asked of the theists first, and then the atheists can reply.

 

1. I am an atheist.

2. I lack a belief in gods.

3. But some may exist.

4. No one can prove they do.

5. I have no reason to prove he dosn't since the burden of proof lies with those that claim gods exist.

6. The Bible says he is Omnipotent.

7. There is great debate what this means, see here.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/

8. He could of created a world without evil or suffering.

9. But he chose not to except in a world called heaven according to Christian dogma.

10. Christians claim he created the world we now have.

11. Which logically would make him responsible for all; that exists.

12. Including bone cancer.

13. Obviously to be consistent with this principle,

14. God would have created everything else such as Hospitals and the red cross, but you would not need Hospitals or the Red Cross if God had not created a world with evil and suffering!

This is what I think a genuine atheist would say on these 14 points, perhaps fellow atheists such as @Swensson could comment on my interpretation.

 

Yeah , , ,
But it'd be like the death of an old friend , , ,lol , , the end
of this thread I mean , , , but Father Time will tell.

Say, did you see my "Swensson-English Bulldog" post up-thread?

JAG

 

1. I am an atheist.
2. I lack a belief in gods.
3. But some may exist.
4. No one can prove they do.
5. I have no reason to prove he dosn't since the burden of proof lies with those that claim gods exist.
6. The Bible says he is Omnipotent.
7. There is great debate what this means, see here.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
8. He could of created a world without evil or suffering.
9. But he chose not to except in a world called heaven according to Christian dogma.
10. Christians claim he created the world we now have.
11. Which logically would make him responsible for all; that exists.
12. Including bone cancer.
13. Obviously to be consistent with this principle,
14. God would have created everything else such as Hospitals and the red cross, but you would not need Hospitals or the Red Cross if God had not created a world with evil and suffering!

This is what I think a genuine atheist would say on these 14 points. Having corrected Jags interpretation of what atheists might think.Lets look at his other arguments.

There are clearly logical inconsistencies within the christian worldview, Christian apologetics exist to try to explain these inconsistencies, in some form or another, some atheists will debate these liars for jesus by postulating that "if a god did exist, this is how the world should look" when viewed logically an rationally.

Yes, this is often called the "Problem of Evil" simply put this suggests "How do you reconcile all the evil, pain and suffering in the world with the Christian God" it should be noted that this argument might work for monotheist religions but not against polytheism with their different gods with different characters where you cannot use this line of argument.

They do not, they simply point out the inconsistencies inherent with the christian world view. The fact is that if someone is going to claim there is a god and try to influence others using this god, such as in morals (think of issues like contraception and homosexuality) and what children are taught, then they are going to have to explain these inconsistencies.

Why would any atheist debate this? That good exists in a world with a good god would be expected, it would be entirely rational and logical, the issue is why evil,pain ans suffering exists in such a world.

You have completely missed the point of the argument which is to point out the inconsistencies posed by the "god is a kind and loving god" statement.

I can argue the question of evil from other positions,

If a god created the universe and with the laws of physics etc, and then left the universe to its own devices, would that explain the problem of evil. Yes it would since I make no claim about gods goodness.
This is simply put a form of Deism.

If there were many gods all with different characters who created the universe would this explain the " Problem of Evil" yes it would because again there is no contradiction with the world we see and live in.
This would be an argument from polytheism.

What I am pointing out is that you do not need to be an atheist to recognise and debate the "problem of evil" there are millions of believers who can recognise the inconsistancies of the Christian world view. Devout, highly religious people who cannot accept the idea of just one "good God".

 

■ Welcome to the Forum, Jolly Penquin.

■ Thank you for focusing on the actual proposition of the Opening Post
and for listing some of the good things God causes.

■ Your post fully satisfied the request made by my Opening Post.
{I will repeat this again down below because its crucial.}

■ I quoted your full post up there to keep your context for what I wrote way down below.

■ Much of your post was standard thread-atheism and a
restatement of:
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
The late Christopher Hitchens, and
Daniel Dennett {to some extent} , , ,
, , , but you saw the point of the Opening Post and responded correctly.

■ Your post up there contains subjects for new Opening Posts/New Threads.

■ Of course threads do not actually "stay on topic" so people will post whatever
pops into mind --"thread drift" always occurs -- I don't have a problem with it.

■ This particular Opening Post had ONLY one request and that was to do what
you did , , ,

■ , , , Therefore some might say that my Opening Post and this Thread was not
worth anything. The question would then be, "So why are you here reading this
worthless 28 page thread.?

_____________


■ "Why is it that Christians invariably thank God for the good, but never hold
God accountable for the bad?"___Jolly Penquin

JAG Writes:
Start quote.
Some atheists say the God of the Bible is responsible for all the evil in the world
and they quote Epicurus as proof of their claim.

Alvin Plantinga has a very good answer to those atheists and to Epicurus:

Sayeth Epicurus:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”__Epicurus

Now Alvin . .

As Plantinga summarized his defense:[14]

"A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform
more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a
world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures,
but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does
so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely.
To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures
capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to
perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned
out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the
exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free
creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's
omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the
occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga's_free-will_defense#Further_details

Epicurus did not correctly understand the Christian doctrine of God's
Omnipotence. God's Omnipotence does not mean that He can do anything.
God cannot create square circles. God cannot make 2 + 2 = 7. God cannot
give humans the freedom to do evil and at the same time prevent humans
from doing evil.

You have to "deep read" what Plantinga explained up there and spend some time
thinking seriously about what he wrote. You have to be willing to read it charitably.
I hope you are not already locked-down on atheism and have already decided to
keep Epicurus as your friend. The fatal flaw in Epicurus is he misunderstood the
Christian doctrine of the Omnipotence of the God of the Bible.
End quote.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...or-the-evil-in-the-world-no-he-is-not.572947/

That is correct.
That totally satisfies my Opening Post.
Jolly Penquin, is I assume an atheist, and he saw the
point of the Opening Post and agreed with it's
core proposition -- which is ALL the Opening Post
ever requested that atheists do.

""If God causes all things, then yes, he is responsible for all that is good , , ,"___Jolly Penquin

I fully agree.
My Opening Post has always been a very simple proposition.
Again that FULLY satisfies ALL that the Opening Post requests that atheists do.
Let me list some of the other good things God caused:

■ 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
■ caused your automobiles to be made and to become yours
■ caused all the money you have, or will ever have, to become yours
■ caused your homes to be heated and cooled
■ caused all your clothes to be made and to become yours
■ caused your pets to come to exist and to become your pets
■ caused all your medicines to be made and to come to be inside your medicine cabinet
■ caused General Motors to come to exist
■ caused your cell phone to be made and to become yours
■ caused all the books in the world that you enjoy to be written
■ caused all the movies you enjoy to be made
■ caused all the music you enjoy to be made
■ caused all the warm sandy beaches you enjoy to come to exist
■ caused all the schools and universities to come to exist
■ caused the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra to come to exist
■ caused all the nursing homes to come to exist
■ caused all the retirement centers to come to exist
■ caused it to be possible for you to retire and enjoy your retirement

JAG

 

Ok. I think I see what Plantinga (and yourself) are saying. God created mortal beings with free will, and in doing so he enabled all good and bad things they do. If he didn't create them with free will then they would lack agency. Agency is important and is the only way you can truly be and do good, as opposed to just appearing so (ie, My car gets me to work but I don't credit it for that in any moral way). So then all the bad people do isn't really God's fault because God had to risk it so that he could have the chance of people doing good. You can't have the ying without the yang.

Is that it?

If so, then on the same logic, all the good people do can't really be credited to God either, other than that he enabled it, just like the bad. Seems to bring us to a neutral position regarding God's goodness/badness.

That's for a generic creator. Especially one who isn't omnipotent or all-knowing.

Now, what if he, she, it or they are all-knowing, and know exactly what we will do and all the actions and decisions we will make as he/she/it/they are creating us? If creator takes a hand in creating each of us, then he/she/it/they can be rightly praised or blamed for the net balance of good/bad that we do, since creator could have decided against the creating. On the other hand, if creator simply made the first humans (or the beings that evolved into humans), and allows the free reproductive choice of each generation (who they mate with and when they have children etc), then he/she/it/they could only rightly be praised or blamed for the net balance of all human decisions for good or evil.

Now, what if the creator is also omnipotent? And what about good and bad that aren't caused by the created beings? What of disease, natural disasters, etc, which isn't caused by humans. Surely if God is omnipotent, then he/she/it/they could have made the universe more hospitable towards life (most of the universe isn't). Why create create carnivores, and various parasites, bacteria, etc that can only live by making others suffer and/or die? This can only make sense to me given either random chance, and evolution by selection on random mutation, or if a creator God exists but isn't all that benevolent, and certainly not a God who is perfectly good.

Now, all of the above is about a generic creator God. So now lets look at the Christian God, which I assume is the one you belive in (correct me if I'm wrong and we can look at other Gods). When I read the bible I see this God foccused mostly on obedience to him, rather than what a humanist would consider good. Adam and Eve are punished not for doing anything wrong perse. They are punished for eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil when God told them not to. That's only bad if disobeying God is bad, so that equates good to obedience to God. But how could Adam or Eve know obedience to God is good before they ate of that fruit of knowledge of good and evil?

This theme of morality defined as obedience to God comes up again and again in the bible, and gets put in direct conflict to what I consider good and bad, ranging from a genocidal flood, to taking pledges from some of his followers to "sacrifice" (kill) their children to him, to him ordering them to kill others people and mutilate their penises (that's just weird) to the concept of Jesus and vicarious redemption (absolving your sin through the suffering of an innocent other person). I judge that as a less than good code of morals.

I feel comfortable concluding based on what I've seen and arguments I've heard, that if an omnipotent and all-knowing god exists, it/he/she/they are not what I would call perfect or even very good. And I feel comfortable concluding based on what I've seen, heard and arguments I've had presented to me, that the Christian God and Muslim God (are they the same God?) is considerably more evil than a generic deist God.need be.

 

Sounds about right (except I'm not technically an atheist, but that's probably beside the point). I'm sure we could come up with more caveats as well if needed.

So yeah, I guess we're up to 5 out of 5.

 

...Is this aimed at me?

 

I'd say it is there, you just haven't seen it. I'm not so interested in what you say, I'm more interested in the misunderstandings that invited you to say them.

 

How can I not? Is there anything about a "personal" suggestion that makes it beyond reproach? If I said "it is my personal expectation that the moon will fall down tomorrow", do you not think you are justified in questioning that?

Why are we looking at that list? The outrageousness I'm referring to is not listed there. Your points 1-14 are just some points, they may or may not apply, I haven't found it particularly interesting to nitpick them. My interest lies in how you think they relate to what atheists believe and say.

 

Read my post more carefully. I didn't say the ideas they didn't believe were the ones in your opening post. I'm talking about the idea of writing or posting about point 14 when point 12 is the one that is relevant for the point they're making.

My objection to your post is all the fluff around the points, that you didn't see fit to put into the points. You call for atheists to celebrate something, when it is merely a hypothetical for them. Do you celebrate hypothetical things?

 

No. Absolutely no.

So sorry. I'll try to do a little better that that!

 

I don't give a rat's butt what point THEY are making.
They make their points.
I make my points.
Feel free to object to your heart's content.
I will continue to request that atheists celebrate 13 and 14
IF they are talking about 1 -6.
Regarding your "hypotheticals" and "kelp" and your "4 atheists" etc
I view all that as::
spin
twists
wiggles
squirm

I will continue to hold the following: as applied to
atheists when their talk and conversations are
about 1 - 6
And if their conversations are NOT about 6 -12, then
I do NOT call upon them to also include 13 and 14

And its all just that simple.
This is not complicated.

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.
`End quote.

_______________________


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.
I would hope they also include 13 and 14
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

Some atheists want it both ways.
{Atheists do not believe that God exist but they postulate
that God exist for the sake of argument.}
They 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

____________


As I said to the Jolly Penquin up-thread:

That is correct.
That totally satisfies my Opening Post.
Jolly Penquin, is I assume an atheist, and he saw the
point of the Opening Post and agreed with it's
core proposition -- which is ALL the Opening Post
ever requested that atheists do.

""If God causes all things, then yes, he is responsible for all that is good , , ,"___Jolly Penquin

I fully agree.
My Opening Post has always been a very simple proposition.
Again that FULLY satisfies ALL that the Opening Post requests that atheists do.
Now let me list some of the other good things God caused
And here at this point I listed them:
■ God caused Polio to be cured
■ etc etc etc

JAG

 

JAG Writes:
"/Big Grin How can you seriously object to a personal suggestion?"___JAG

And Swensson Replies:

Here we are entering the Land Of Oz.
Here we have entered the Realm Of The Absurd.
You're going to seriously object to me making a
~ suggestion
~ request
~ my desire to be known

Then we are back to "Twas brillig and the slithy toves" , , and to such as this:
Tom: I plan to buy a new Ford truck this year. What do you think about that?
Henry: I had bacon and eggs for breakfast this morning.

, , lol , , ,

We just entered Crazyville with your objection to me making a suggestion , ,

, , , then add this , , ,

Here in order to justify your objection to me merely making a suggestion,
you bring up the "moon will fall down tomorrow" as if that was of the
same gravity as this:

JAG Wrote:
I will continue to hold the following: as applied to
atheists when their talk and conversations are
about 1 - 6
And if their conversations are NOT about 6 -12, then
I do NOT call upon them to also include 13 and 14

And its all just that simple.
This is not complicated.
End quote.

I have explained that 5 million times.
Here it is again:
JAG Writes:
I will continue to hold the following: as applied to
atheists when their talk and conversations are
about 1 - 6
And if their conversations are NOT about 6 -12, then
I do NOT call upon them to also include 13 and 14

And its all just that simple.
This is not complicated.
End quote.

JAG

``