Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

So if we can't figure out which one is true, how come what the Bible says matters? How come Christendom's most famous Bible verse earns a place in your post when you couldn't even tell me what Hinduism's equivalent is? How do you get from "the Bible says Eternal Life / Perish" to "Eternal Life / Perish is the truth", without being able to justify that what the Bible says is true?

 

* We can never "figure" it out.
* All I can do is to patiently restate that Christianity
is a Faith.
You cannot "figure . . out" a Faith with your intellect.

~~ He that comes to God must believe that he exists
and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.
Without Faith it is impossible to please God.~~
Hebrews 11:6
So the question is, Do you want to please God"
Yes? or No? You can answer that in your own mind.

By the way, if you ever come to Faith in God because
of what you might call "secular reasons" -- then you
could abandon Faith in God if you came across more
impressive "secular reasons" against having Faith
in God. So you could be a believer in 2020 and
an unbeliever in 2021 --- then back again to being
a believer in 2022, and back to being an unbeliever
in 2023 ect

* Christianity is a supernatural Faith and you must
have supernatural help in order to become a believer.
You cannot do it alone by exercising your Free Will.
You have to have Holy Spirit power in order to believe in
the Lord Jesus as your Savior. That is what the Bible
teaches and I'd be lying to you if I told you any different.

"No one can come to me unless the Father
who sent me draws them, and I will raise
them up at the last day.___"The Lord Jesus
John 6:44

You have to ask God for help to believe. We all have
to do that.
But as long as you keep bringing up comparative
religions like Islam and Hinduism, that means you
will not be moving toward the place where you will
be asking God for any help to believe in Christianity.
Why not? Because the point of bringing up comparative
religions is to say that religion is a conglomeration of a
confused jungle and therefore all of it is a huge-enormous
discombobulated mess. That might not be your exact point
but that is the exact point of most people who bring up
comparative religions in threads on the Internet At large.

This is why we see "The Flying Spaghetti Monster"
brought up in threads on the Internet. Its asinine and
at the Third Grade level of discourse --- but anything
that can "get rid of God" is acceptable for many out
here pecking away on their keyboards.

Because , , ,
"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are
God's children." Romans 8:16
(Its supernatural. You have to experience it.}

Hinduism is not important.
What is important is how to solve the Aging-Disease-Death problem.
John 3:16 and not Hinduism, solves that problem
"whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have Eternal Life."

Faith.
"without Faith it is impossible to please God" Hebrews 11:6
"being justified by Faith we have peace with God through our
Lord Jesus Christ" Romans 5:1


``

 

Have you give any thought to The Trolley Problem?

i have a question for you.
Its The Trolley Problem.
The Fat Man Version
"A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people.
You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you
can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it.
As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your
only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge
and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you
proceed?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#The_fat_man

So what would you do?

__________________________________________

Or we can discuss this version of The Trolley Problem:

"There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks,
there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for
them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you
pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you
notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

1. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Original_dilemma
________________________

What would you choose to do? And why?

PS
Was Harry Truman morally justified in dropping the Big Bomb
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


``


``

 

Well, what is the basis of your view? How do you differentiate between an atheist who rejects 14, and an atheist who simply finds that 14 is irrelevant for any of the points they're discussing?

I reckon the vast majority of actively debating atheists are in the second category. Four people do not represent atheism, but given that they were effectively randomly selected, they're a pretty good indication that the view is widespread. In particular, it shows that my hunch that most atheists believe this is more reliable than your view. Four people don't represent atheism, but they do a much better job than your list of zero examples.

But you have made the unfounded assumption that the only reason they aren't saying it is that they don't agree with it, which is simply false.

While I don't think they see a good point in that either, I don't think that is the main source of the situation.

The only objection I have had to the subject matter of the OP is your expectation that atheists would have any interest in stating 14.

Probably true to some extent, it is very frustrating to be second guessed to the point where ones actual argument gets ignored.

See, again, you make an unfounded jump between what the atheists believe and whether they should be starting threads on the topic.

Why does there have to be a problem for people not to start threads on topics? I believe that 2+2=4, yet I don't see a reason to start a thread on it.

Do you have a problem with 2+2=4? Is that why you're not starting a thread on that subject? Or is it because it is not relevant?

Ah, yes, this mysterious 99.9%, of which we can't find any instances. Whenever we ask anyone closely, it turns out they're not actually in that category. It seems you just don't know how to tell the difference between people in and outside of that category.

Again, you're confusing belief in something with being loud about something. Don't think I'm forgetting your consistent inability to reconcile the two. I don't see why believing in 14 should lead them to say anything in particular.

 

My points in this thread are primarily (before we got sidetracked to other topics) about your claims about and expectations on atheists. You can argue point 14 as much as you want, and every now and then, I'm sure someone will comment on it, but the things that I think deserve objection is things like

"My view is that 99.99% of world atheism rejects {14}"
"Again where is THEIR thread on that subject?"
"I notice that your 4 have remained quiet as a mouse and have not come forward and said yes the God-That-Does-Not-Exist has also caused all the good things in the world"
"I ask these God-Causes-All-Things Atheists to join me in listing the good things God causes"

All of these betray some expectation that a person who believes 14 should be starting threads or start listing things. I think that expectation is not true, and I have provided examples to show it.

 

I am pretty certain that I have a more accurate understanding than you do. I have even gone out of my way to check whether these atheists believe as you think they believe, or as I think they believe, and they have consistently shown me correct. Maybe there are atheists who think differently, but they're a lot less than the 99.9% you're expecting.

That's not what I said, I said their arguments would be an unintelligible mess if they included a bunch of points like point 14 which doesn't have an impact on whether their actual point (the argument of evil) works.

 

You mentioned {14} and "expectation" , , ,
/Big Grin
How can you have a serious objection to a mere "expectation"?
Isn't that difficult to sustain?
How 'bout if I classify my "expectation" as a personal opinion?
Would you object to me having a personal opinion about what atheists ought to do?
If so, that'd be a wee bit unusual, wouldn't it?
I don't follow atheists around the forum asking them to start threads advancing 14.
But I can have an opinion on it.
My opinion is they are inconsistent as explained below:

Here again is our little chart:
_______________
{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

___________________________________________
"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 atheist 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.
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
______________________________________________________

You are the very last person on this Forum that'd I'd want to frustrate.
Because you're a polite gentlemen in discussions. So?
So I will respond to any argument that you feel I am ignoring.
And give it my best shot.

Here is why:
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, the Red Cross, etc
and we're back to {13} and {14} being true."___JAG

______________


More later , , ,


JAG


``

 

As established, I don't think there is an obvious, unquestionable answer to the question. For the purposes of not leaving the question unanswered, my answer would be that the right thing is to sacrifice the few for the good of the many. There are however many caveats here, for instance, I think that is the right thing, but it is not clear to me that I could bring myself to it at the time.

In addition, there is a certain level of meta-ethics. If it is ethically ambiguous what the right thing is, then it is also morally not justified to condemn a person making either choice.

We must also consider the greater context of the situation, for instance, if new trains just keep coming, and we have to push one additional person onto the tracks, we may end up making six "defendable" decisions which together kill 6 people when there are only 5 people on the track to save. The more classic version of this is the man who walks into a hospital for a routine checkup and gets harvested for organs. Morally defensible if we just count lives, but if we acknowledge that this suggests that society can keep doing it, which may result in a worse society. In both cases, the trick is that there is effects of our decisions outside the ones listed in the example.

 

I'm pretty certain that you don't.

 

It seems to me that when you choose to reject the principle of evidence, and add Bible quotes without evidence, the result is not truth, so yes, that does get rid of the truth of John 3:16. Just like spiderman isn't true, and we are justified in not believing it based on the fact that there is no actual evidence.

 

Be back tomorrow on The Trolley Problem.
Thanks for your comments on that.

JAG

Scot me up Beamy.


``

 

I mean, in this particular case, you asked for my opinion, I do what I can to break it down.

As mentioned before, the end is not all that matters. Logic can get you (or at least approach) a good, fair and efficient life for you and others, and that is a good friend to have, even if it doesn't matter in your arbitrary heat-death-of-the-universe measure value.

How so? Utilitarianism is a classic line of thought, and it has a couple of standard problems, one being fairness (often illustrated using the "happiness monster"). We have seen real world applications of it where fairness suffered due to an utilitarian approach, so unless the unfairness and subsequent suffering is meaningless, it seems to me this is an appropriate amount of mind to pay.

As I have argued before, the best solution will be fully intellectual, and at the same time emotionally grounded (too much emotion may lead to unfairness, since we tend to be bad at applying emotion to people far away from us). That being said, this particular issue, I'm making complicated because you asked me to.

And life if it is fair is lived by the intellect. Mind you, I argue that you can do both.

Secular humanist is probably close to the core.

I have plenty of fun and emotion, I just try not to get it tangled up with issues that are best solved with the intellect.

Perhaps, but you are presented as such, when you say you can't think of any exceptions to the golden rule, when in fact there are plenty.

Again, I'm not trying to grill you for whatever principle you use, I'm specifically addressing your reliance on the golden rule, but somehow it has slipped completely from your response.

 

Well, I've provided plenty of examples of mine, and you have presented none of yours, so I guess you are simply certain of things that aren't true.

 

That's standard atheism.
Christianity is a Faith. It is not based on "the principle of evidence."
I am a Christian. So? So I talk about Faith.
I don't have much to offer atheists by way of Empirical evidence
that shows Christianity true with certainty. If I DID have that --then
I'd be a $$$ millionaire in just a few months. I'd have several Nobel
Prizes. You know it.

JAG

Later , , ,


``

 

I guess you don't get to decide that for me.

 

Sure, people can have opinions that are wrong. It wouldn't be strange to challenge them on that. It seems to me your "opinion" suggests that these atheists would do stuff that would make no sense for them to do. You can have that opinion, but if anything, it implies that you haven't grasped the logic they are presenting, which in turn would open the significant possibility that your Christianity is based on biases and not truth, which is something I would be interested in exploring.

Let's say that 14 is true, and that 2+2=4 is true. Neither can be used to determine whether God exists via the argument of evil. If we have an atheist who believes both statements, do you think he should state 2+2=4? Why, why not? Do you think he should state your point 14? Why, why not? Are those two answers different, and if so why?

Again, I asked for the reason to state 14, not to believe that 14 is true. However, what you provided was an argument to believe that 14 is true, the thing I did not ask for. My point has consistently been the mismatch between thinking that 14 is true, and seeing fit to introduce it into existing arguments or starting threads about it, yet somehow, you again forgot to show the last step, the step that I've been specifically asking about.

 

It is epistemology, it is how we attain knowledge. You use it in every other aspect of your life. Or rather, if there is any aspect where you do not, you're likely to be wrong a lot in that aspect.

I agree, but somehow, you sneak in the aspect of "truth" in there, even though that's not a concept that faith is able to access. Evidence does happen to be able to access truth.

 

You're right, it is not my decision, it is decision of all those atheists who upon inspection show that I was right and you were not.

 

Well, then we have not justification for thinking that it is true, and all your assertions that it is true might just as well be wrong.

I don't think that is the point they're making. If that was the point, then your counterargument would be valid, but I don't think it is.

I think the point is one of epistemology (although, I agree, dressed in a trapping of mockery). The reasons religion provides for its beliefs are not reliable ways of arriving at truth. Comparative religion (including comparisons to non-existing religions, which is where the Spaghetti Monster started) is evidence of this.

So the Bible is true because the Bible says that it is true. If that was a solid argument, then Starwars would be true, I could even make up "true" statements on the spot.

Hindus say that they solve the problem. And you have provided no more convincing accounts than they have (you've just ignored theirs, presumably due to geographic bias).

But faith is unable to tell truth from fiction. If it wasn't, then faith wouldn't be giving completely different answers, depending on what upbringing you have.

 

I mean, in this particular case, you asked for my opinion, I do what I can to break it down.

As mentioned before, the end is not all that matters. Logic can get you (or at least approach) a good, fair and efficient life for you and others, and that is a good friend to have, even if it doesn't matter in your arbitrary heat-death-of-the-universe measure value.

How so? Utilitarianism is a classic line of thought, and it has a couple of standard problems, one being fairness (often illustrated using the "happiness monster"). We have seen real world applications of it where fairness suffered due to an utilitarian approach, so unless the unfairness and subsequent suffering is meaningless, it seems to me this is an appropriate amount of mind to pay.

As I have argued before, the best solution will be fully intellectual, and at the same time emotionally grounded (too much emotion may lead to unfairness, since we tend to be bad at applying emotion to people far away from us). That being said, this particular issue, I'm making complicated because you asked me to.

And life if it is fair is lived by the intellect. Mind you, I argue that you can do both.

Secular humanist is probably close to the core.

I have plenty of fun and emotion, I just try not to get it tangled up with issues that are best solved with the intellect.

Well, my point is primarily that there are exceptions and caveats to the golden rule, so I guess that remains true.

 

Who would get to decide who was, or was not, correct
on the challenge offered?
You?
How about Me.
Let Me decide?

Say , , ,
Do you believe ? there is an
"International Authority That Decides Who Is, Or Is Not, Correct On Challenges"
No.

How about we take a Majority Vote to settle that?
No.

How about if we let YOU & All-The-People-That-Agree-With-You , , , decide that?
No.

So tell me WHO decides that.

Don't mean to be hostile, but it matters not 0.000 to me what
"makes sense to them."

In case you haven't noticed Christians and atheists are ideological
enemies on the Internet. You understand the concept of an "ENEMY."

Why would you think that Winston Churchill in 1944 would give a
rat's butt about what General Erwin Rommel thought about anything?
They were enemies.

So would you go and ask The Joker for his opinions on Batman?

Or would you ask Superman his opinions on Lex Luthor?
Enemies! Enemies!
Why do you think I care what my enemies think about this subject?
I do not give a rat's butt what THEY think about it.

I do not want to grasp it.
Ideological enemies. Get it?

I think you're already convinced that Christianity is based
on biases and is NOT the truth.
If so then , , ,
That's standard atheism.
And I MUST tell you that , , ,
Christianity is a Faith.
It is not based on what you previously called "the principle of evidence."
I am a Christian. So? So I talk about Faith.
I don't have much to offer atheists [or Secular Humanists} by way of
Empirical evidence that shows Christianity true with certainty. If I DID
have that --then I'd be a $$$ millionaire in just a few months. I'd have
several Nobel Prizes. You know it
______

There is nothing you can say that will make Christianity an
intellectual system based on Empiricism and Rationalism.

My Opening Post and this thread has got zero to do
with the question "Does God Exist?"

My Opening Post and this thread does NOT even claim
that the God of the Bible is good. Even thought I personally
believe that He is good. --- but the OP does NOT argue for
that. I will keep telling you this for ever how long it takes
to get it to stick in your mind --- even for the next 20 years
if this thread lasts that long. Or 50 years.

Regarding the 2 + 2 = 4 thingy, that does NOT have the
gravity and seriousness that the Opening Post has. So
it is comparing "apples" to "spaceships" so far as I am
concerned.

My opening Post postulates, for arguments sake, that the
God of the Bible is both good and bad and does both
good and bad acts. That is not MY PERSONAL view
of God -- but the OP allows for that. So? So I call upon
atheists to proclaim BOTH. They DO proclaim
{6} through {12} --- they therefore ought to also
proclaim {13} and {14}.

That is my personal opinion.

Consider it a personal request.
I am asking them to do it.
After all, nobody is being FORCED to do a single thing here.

Consider it to be a gift from me to you.
14 is true.
The truth is good for you.

Think of it as a request.
Think of it as me saying "In my opinion they ought to do that
if they want to be consistent."

I'd be satisfied if they'd just mention it every time they drop
in and say, in effect, that the God-That-Does-not-Exist
is evil.
They can then ALSO say the God-That-Does-Not-Exist
ALSO does many good things.

JAG


``

 

Enemies remember. enemies.
They have their "decisions."
I have my "decisions"
They can decide whatever they want to decide
about this issue. So can I. So can you.
There are no Authorities here.
Only keyboard peckers.

Scot me up Beamy.

``

 

No.. Christianity and atheism are not enemies. There may be individuals that look at it that way, but it doesn't make sense. It IS possible that a Christian may hold an opinion about how this physical world works that is not supported by actual investigation. It IS possible that a Christian may want to hold others to behavior that has no justification outside of a Biblical argument. But, that's just a disagreement about the role of government and religious freedom.

As to the importance of resolving your belief and that of other religions, all your claims on the superiority or accuracy of your religion (your fervency, your being convinced by events, etc.) are the same ones that all belief systems hold. There is nothing which is unique about your belief or faith. In fact, that is sort of the POINT, isn't it? Your religion points out that it isn't by evidence, it is by faith. And, that is equally true for other religions.

As for your comments on atheists believing that god is responsible for evil, that's just ridiculous. By definition, no atheist can possibly suggest that a god did something. You should drop that as it undermines credibility.

 

JAG Wrote:
We can never "figure" it out.
All I can do is to patiently restate that Christianity
is a Faith.
You cannot "figure . . out" a Faith with your intellect.

Swensson Replied:

There are plenty of "justifications" for believing Christianity true.
Christianity is not based on Fideism.
Fideism is "blind faith."
There are plenty of rational arguments that offer evidences
that Christianity is true.
Here are 20 of them right here:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
So what is going to happen here with these 20?
You know very well what is going to happen.
They will be dismissed, by atheists, as nonsense or as not valid.
Are you going to go over there and read them and become a Christian?
Heh heh, we both know the answer to that one.
Yet maybe you will one day?
One never knows what the future holds.
___________

We have arguments for the truth of Christianity based
on high Probability. This, as you know, is highly subjective.
One man's "high Probability" is another man's "low Probability."
But the arguments DO exist.
And more are coming. Christian Apologists are working on them.
Non-intelligent natural processes cannot explain this fine-tuned Universe.
The arguments will never eliminate the necessity

JAG

 

Do you read threads?
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
.

You have been in a very DEEP FOG on this issue ever since this
thread started. I do NOT desire for the fog to be lifted. I have
explained this to you at least 7 times. I will NEVER again
explain this to you. I now strongly desire for you to remain
in a DEEP FOG on this issue. Please continue to post the
same stuff as often as you feel the need to unburden your soul.

Please allow me to help you with this:

"As for your comments on atheists believing that god is responsible
for evil, that's just ridiculous. By definition, no atheist can possibly
suggest that a god did something"___WillReadMore


"As for your comments on atheists believing that god is responsible
for evil, that's just ridiculous. By definition, no atheist can possibly
suggest that a god did something"___WillReadMore

"As for your comments on atheists believing that god is responsible
for evil, that's just ridiculous. By definition, no atheist can possibly
suggest that a god did something"___WillReadMore

____________

Don't forget now to tell that up there several MORE times
and do it anytime you feel the need.

Best.

JAG


``