Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

@Swensson

JAG Note: I had a tech problem during that post up there and
could not finish it, so I am re-posting it so I can finish it.
_____________

Swensson,
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 to exercise faith in God.
Christianity is a Faith and Faith is a core belief of Christendom and
cannot be eliminated from Christianity without wrecking the entire
Christian system.
{1} "without faith it is impossible to please God"
{2} "for by grace are you saved through faith"
{3}"he that comes to God must believe that He exists
and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him"
{4} "for God so loved the world that He gave His one and
only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish
but have eternal life"

JAG

 

Sorry for being repetitive, but you keep making the same absurd calim about what atheists think god has done. And, you really should stop saying that, as it is not true.

But, the majority of the post to which you responded was about the comparison of religions, not the existence of a god.

I was questioning your justification for writing off all those god based religions other than Christianity.

Your reply wth an argument that god exists doesn't answer that question.

 

Please continue to be repetitive.

Please continue to post your nonsensical befuddled misunderstanding
of the Opening Post and the subject of this thread.

Please keep on posting the same absurdities regularly.

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 remember carefully explaining the Opening Post to you at
least 7 times. If I had not explained it to you with patience
and kindness at least 7 times, I would patiently explain it to
you again. But after 7 times, it is clear to me that you prefer
to remain in a DEEP FOG regarding the Opening Post. There
is no help for the man who is determined NOT to understand,
and who is locked-down on his ignorance, therefore , , , ,

. I will NEVER again explain the Opening Post 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
_____________

"Sorry for being repetitive, but you keep making the same absurd
claim about what atheists think god has done. And, you really
should stop saying that, as it is not true.
But, the majority of the post to which you responded was
about the comparison of religions, not the existence of a god.
I was questioning your justification for writing off all those
god based religions other than Christianity.
Your reply with an argument that god exists doesn't answer
that question."___WillReadMore

"Sorry for being repetitive, but you keep making the same absurd
claim about what atheists think god has done. And, you really
should stop saying that, as it is not true.
But, the majority of the post to which you responded was
about the comparison of religions, not the existence of a god.
I was questioning your justification for writing off all those
god based religions other than Christianity.
Your reply with an argument that god exists doesn't answer
that question."___WillReadMore

____________

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

Best.

JAG

`

 

Heh heh, just out of curiosity, in light of what you said up there
in that quote block --- what are your comments on this below?

JAG Previously Explained:
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 those
atheists who do proclaim {6} through {12} to ALSO proclaim
{13} & {14}. Some atheists DO proclaim {6} through {12},
therefore to be consistent with their principle, they ought to
ALSO proclaim {13} and {14}. {see list below}

{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

Further clarification:

"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 {not all} 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

_________

WillReadMore,
Question: In light of EVERYTHING I just posted up there, are you
still going to tell me this below?

/just curious

JAG


``

 

Swensson, I read your comments on The Trolley Problem
with care. Thank you for replying. I will be back asap
to make some comments.

JAG

 

Atheists do not accept that there is a god. That's what it means. Thus anyone who claims to be an atheist yet makes statements about what god is responsible for doing is either just being irritatingly illogical (and must be ignored) or isn't an atheist. In some cases of logical argument it can make sense to assume a premise and then show that the premise leads to some form of logical discontinuity that invalidates the premise. I don't believe that works with religion, because mankind would never know god's purpose and methods. In fact, that is stated in the bible. There are NUMEROUS questions concerning the Christian god that can't be answered by man, and I don't see that as invalidating Christianity.

Sometimes I get curious about the consistency of Christian views, but I'm not here to invalidate Christianity.

There IS an intersection between science and religion on some topics. I'm quite interested in that, especially when it affects public policy.

I'd prefer that we use the logic and methods of religion to address religious issues and the logic and methods of science to address issues of how this physical universe works.

Even the Pope agrees that there is a religious realm and a realm of science, with the two remaining separate.

Your 1-14 list goes off the rails after the first two - which are essentially identical statements of what it means to be an atheist. I don't accept anything in the list after that.

I'll go farther than that and point out that if there were a god of the biblical type, mankind could not be the judge of that god. So, anything about mankind judging god's acts as good or evil makes no sense. Christians try to follow their god, but they don't have their god's knowledge. Part of the faith is that what god does and expects is good - or at least justified. Is cancer evil? Is helping Israelites slaughter every man woman and child in Jericho evil? Was torturing Job evil? We know Lot's drunken sex with his daughters was blessed by god - is that an indication of approved behavior or an exception made for some reason we don't understand? My view would be that mankind's judgement of god's acts is irrelevant.

Religion is by faith alone.

 

I love your organ harvesting example.

I'm pretty dang sure I would not murder the guy next to me in hopes of improving the trolley outcome, though I seem to remember variants that aren't so easy.

 

Yeah, you can take small steps, changing the setup by seemingly morally insignificant changes, and still end up with an example which to many will seem to give a different conclusion. Not everyone will answer the same thing to each example, but everyone (except for dogmatic people who don't really evaluate the idea, just apply their chosen morality) will find one transition where the "solution" goes against intuition.

What about the normal trolley problem? The train is hurdling towards five people, you can flip a switch to send it towards a single person instead. Flipping the switch is effectively the same as murdering the healthy organ donor, yet flipping the switch seems way more morally defensible than murdering the hospital visiter. What if the person on the alternative track isn't tied to the track, he's just walking across it on his way to his medical appointment?

We would have to consider the idea that maybe "I would not murder a guy next to me in hopes of improving the trolley outcome" is a psychological aversion, and not actually a moral truth. Then again, maybe killing the one person on the tracks is not morally equivalent to letting five (or even the one first person) die.

My conclusion is that morality is not absolute. Mind you, this doesn't relieve us from following morality. To a secular humanist, morality stems from our humanity, and we can no more escape our humanity than we could escape an absolute morality.

I agree, it is extremely interesting.

 

You did exactly what I thought you'd do. I knew you would.

Please continue to post your nonsensical befuddled
misunderstanding of the Opening Post and the subject
of this thread.

Please keep on posting the same absurdities regularly.

You have been in a very DEEP FOG on this issue ever
since this thread started.

My view is that you will remain in a DEEP FOG on this
subject until the day you die.

_________________________________________



JAG Writes:
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 those
atheists who do proclaim {6} through {12} to ALSO proclaim
{13} & {14}. Some atheists DO proclaim {6} through {12},
therefore to be consistent with their principle, they ought to
ALSO proclaim {13} and {14}. {see list below}

{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

Further clarification:

"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 {not all} 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

JAG Writes:
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 those
atheists who do proclaim {6} through {12} to ALSO proclaim
{13} & {14}. Some atheists DO proclaim {6} through {12},
therefore to be consistent with their principle, they ought to
ALSO proclaim {13} and {14}. {see list above}

_____________

 

That changes the setup and make it no-longer The Trolley Problem

My understanding of The Trolley Problem is that it is a Thought Experiment
and in order to interact with the problem, you cannot change the setup.

If you do change the setup, then it is no longer The Trolley Problem,
but becomes a DIFFERENT Thought Experiment.

_______

I could say that the 5 people on the track were not really tied up tight
and that there was a possibility that all 5 could get free of their
restraints and roll off the track before the trolley got to them
If I were to do that, then that would drastically change The
Trolley Problem so that it was no longer The Trolley Problem
thought experiment.

/just saying
I have no strong feeling against you changing the setup.


``

 

Well, I'm not mentioning them by virtue of being trolley problems, but by virtue of examining the same kind of issue (and in this case, by examining very well-defined differences). That being said, I would probably still consider my variation that you quoted to be the trolley problem, the wording I find on wikipedia only mentions the one person as "Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person", it doesn't explicitly suggest that the one person is tied to the tracks. Thus it seems to me my variation still fills the criteria of being a trolley problem. Certainly, it retains more of the original problem than the fat man version does.

But yes, the point of my variation (whatever you wish to call it) is to point out that a villain tying you to the rails does not make you more worthy of death than going to the doctors did in the organ harvest example (since there can be no moral difference between the one person in the harvest example and the hospital trip trolley problem, the two people reasoned and acted exactly the same).

 

There is a lot more to think about here than I imagined.

Keep posting, please!

 

You ignored every single thing in my post.

That's unfortunate.

 

You and I just don't communicate.

My view is exactly your view, namely
you ignore all explanations as if they
were NEVER explained to you.

I am not kidding when I say to you
that I have explained the OP to
you 7 times -- if you count my last post
to you, that's 8 times.

You don't hear it. It goes in one ear
and out the other.

I can NOT explain it to you any clearer than this below:

_______________

JAG Writes:
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 those
atheists who do proclaim {6} through {12} to ALSO proclaim
{13} & {14}. Some atheists DO proclaim {6} through {12},
therefore to be consistent with their principle, they ought to
ALSO proclaim {13} and {14}. {see list below}

{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

Further clarification:

"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 {not all} 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


``

 

Maybe we can communicate on this one?
The Trolley Problem as it is setup the way I presented it
in this thread {off a wiki article} is a clear moral choice
between:
{1} you passively allowing the trolley to kill 5 people
{2} you actively killing 1 person in order to save the 5 persons

With {1} you merely passively watch 5 people killed by something
you personally had NOTHING to do with

With {2} you actively and personally participle in the direct killing
of another human being --- true your motives were good -- but
you still personally killed a human being. You personally pulled a
lever that killed a human being. You personally mangled up a
human being in order to save 5 other human beings from beings
from being mangled up. . That'd be hard to live with --- for some
people.

____________

Don't let me get in the way of your conversation with Swensson.
Ignore my post up there if you prefer.

JAG

 

You are simply spamming.

You have not responded to anything that I've said.

 

"murdering"__Swensson
"killing"__Swebsson

Can we agree that there is a large and significant MORAL difference
between "murder" and "killing"? The MORAL difference is motive.
A soldier kills.
The home invader murders.
If you add "murder" to The Trolley Problem, in my opinion,
it ceases to be The Trolley Problem --- 'course you may
unthinkingly be using "murder" to just mean "killing." ?

________

By the way, can you explain the hospital visitor problem?
How does that work? Did the doctors "grab the dude"?
And force him onto the operating table?

By the way, this is how you spell visitor. LOL I had to google it.

________

Regarding The Trolley Problem: I have heard some Christians
say they would NOT pull the lever and kill the one man in order
to save the 5 men, because it is never right to do wrong in order
to do good. They said that God could stop the trolley if He wanted
to. I don't say that. I don't know what I would do to be honest with
you. I would hate mighty bad to be in that situation. I mean I don't
want to have to live with the knowledge that I chose either
{1}
or
{2}.


``

 

Your posts are befuddled.
You are in a DEEP FOG with regard to my OP.
Stay there in that DEEP FOG , , , forever.
________________

{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

JAG Writes:
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 those
atheists who do proclaim {6} through {12} to ALSO proclaim
{13} & {14}. Some atheists DO proclaim {6} through {12},
therefore to be consistent with their principle, they ought to
ALSO proclaim {13} and {14}.


``

 

I've answered with what I would do. I would not kill someone in hopes of saving others. I wouldn't term that as passive unless I chose to make no other effort to improve the outcome.

I think a more interesting issue for you is that all judgements of whether a god's actions are good or evil are invalid.

Mankind is NOT the judge of god.

Do you agree, or do you think mankind can identify acts of god that are evil - or do you have an alternaive view on that?

 

The trolley problem suggests that the outcome would be improved by throwing the guy next to you onto the track.

That begs the question of whether you would throw YOURSELF on the track.

Is your life worth more than the life standing next to you?

I think if you decide that someone being thrown on the tracks would save 5 lives, the only person you get to throw on the track si YOURSLEF.

 

OK, here is my 1 hr minor improvement in response.

If I'm standing on the bridge and the question is throwing someone on the track ...

The only person I get to throw on the track is me.

 

That's reasonable. I think I agree with all that.
I think your decision to "improve the outcome" is a very good/moral decision.

I take the orthodox Christian view that God always does that which is
morally right. True we do not, and in my view, now can NOT fully
understand that. But I hold that by Faith. Christianity is a Faith
and not a philosophical intellectual system.
The principle: You know what God did to Job.
Job was 100% innocent.
God tested Job severely.
Yet , ,
"In all this Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing."
Job 1:22
So agreed. Man is not the judge of God.

``

 

That is the Christian position, me thinks.
Here is the Christian principle:
"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his
life for his friends.""__The Lord Jesus John 15:12-13

 

How about this one: Call it JAG's Dilemma. {I made it up}
{1} You are in a situation where you cannot escape making
a choice.
{2} You are prevented from sacrificing yourself. You are bound
hand and foot. You can NOT offer yourself to save others.
{3} There is a mad man who has two groups of people waiting
to ,be possibly killed.
Group A is 50 healthy teenagers.
Group B is 30 healthy teenagers.
{3} You know for a fact that the mad man always tells the truth.
{4} The mad man presents you with a choice:
{5} You must choose which group lives and which group dies.
{6} The group you choose will live and not be harmed in any way.
{7} If you refuse to chose the mad man will kill both groups.
Question:
What would you choose?
Choose the smaller group to be killed?
Refuse to choose and allow both groups to be killed?

@Swensson
What would you choose to do Swensson?

``
``

 

OK, but I think you have to go a little further here.

It's not just that it would be a sin to accuse god.

One must also consider that Job could not possibly know, because he was human. Accusing god would have been Job asserting that gods plan was wrong, that god was mistaken - without Job having any possibility of knowing.

So, you need a response to those who quizz you about kids getting cancer.

And I think that answer has to reflect the above - that mankind can not know god's purpose or plan - that there is no possibility of man judging god.

Faith has to extend to god being perfect even in light of a kid dying of cancer. Faith is not based on evidence.