On Atheism vs. Christianity

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Mods, I figured this was the best place to make such a thread, as we've had similar threads here before.

I've noticed in my discussions with atheists that a particular point they make is this: That a good and loving God would not subject his creations to pain, suffering, death, and the worst that the world can do to us. Therefore, even if a God does exist, he isn't the benevolent one that Christians believe in.

The problem of pain has been written on in volumes which could stack to the moon. What I really want to know about is its philosophical opposite: the problem of pleasure.

Why is sex fun? Surely, pleasure is not a prerequisite to procreation, as in the cases of the vast majority of other species. Why do we enjoy eating? Why do we enjoy looking at beautiful things? In other words, in a world which is ultimately meaningless, why does pleasure exist?

It seems to be the philosophical equivalent to Atheists to what the problem of pain is for Christians.

I haven't gone through this thread, and I don't know if the answer I'm about to offer has been offered (if is has, please disregard). But the answer is simplicity itself: If pleasure is associated with an act, it increases the chance that we'll engage in the act. The fact that the act of mating is extremely pleasurable induces us to mate and increases the chances that the species will survive.

Beauty: A simple example is a man finding a woman beautiful. Again, the characteristics that we associate with beauty all correlate with fecundity (a breast-waist-hip ratio that indicates health and the ability to give birth to offspring; symmetry of features which correlate with fitness; a youthful appearance). Again, mankind's appreciation of and attraction to beauty (and the urge to mate with those we find beautiful) is associated with the survival of the species.

It's extremely easy to understand how evolution via natural selection would lead to the pleasure of sex and the attraction to certain physical characteristics. No need for a God.

That's pretty much it in the nut shell, I think. Love of a face can create a bond that leads to kids. Love of kids leads to their survival and other relatives, love of the relative leads to love of people and love of people to love of the universe itself. And love of the universe leads to the disappearance of the self for the lover and the beloved are one. And thus it is that I create the God who created me.

Interesting notion that.... We are God... each of us... and to be God we must only love...
What then IS love... IF Jesus was the creator of his God and loved as you described - he must have to be so - we must find an example of LOVE.... and to find that we look to... Jesus??

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: n yusef
Skoorb et al,

Do you have a college degree? If so, how did you make it through at least fifteen years of schooling without learning about nonreligious morality?

Hmmm, I am getting very close to graduating, and I have never had any course cover that, nor do I have any courses in the future that will cover that. I also doubt that I will cover that in any further education, so I think it might be normal not to cover that. However, that looks like some interesting reading.

The principle is very simple: Murder is wrong, not because a god says so, but because someone was killed. Theft is wrong, not because a god says so, but because someone was stolen from. A liberal arts education crystallized my beliefs, but the foundation is inherent to any secular society, and (I had assumed) to the psyche of its members.

I haven't really read up on this at all, but you just seem to be begging the question. You assume that someone dying is bad, but everyone dies, and even we believe it is not always bad. How do we know that someone dying is bad, and not good? If no one died, and people continued to reproduce we would be reduced to a very pitiful state, I believe very much that in general people dying is a good thing. There must be something more special about the death of a person that makes death at the hands of another an "evil."

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The purpose of this topic is to point out the fallacy I think is inherent in challenging Christians on the basis that pain implies something meaner than a loving God.

It seems to me that pain and pleasure must play by the same rules. That is, if pleasure is part of evolution, then pain must be too. Yet many atheists only question the significance of pain, and typically ignore pleasure.

In other words, if pain is proof that God, even if he exists, is not a nice guy, then what is pleasure proof of?

The main problem with your theory is that your christian god is supposed to be benevolent. Thus, pleasure would be synonamous with his will, while watching families be forced to rape and cannibalize each other would be something a benevolent god might try to you know, prevent. If he's around, and he's all powerful, and he's benevolent, then it makes sense for pleasure to exist. It doesn't make sense for the level of horror people experience to exist.

IOW, pleasure and pain make perfect sense in a world without a benevolent god, but in a world where a benevolent god exists, such levels of horrific existence are contradictory to his very existence. If you claim the torture and murder is a lesson to others that the benevolent father wishes to instruct, that kinda sucks for the torturee, no?

I have always had a problem with this argument, and it seems to be covered in that wikipedia article. How do you know that god views the raping and cannibalizing of their own family as evil? I know you and I think it is evil, but that does not imply that it is actually evil.

We have a concept of god. We have a concept of benevolence. Religion propogates the concept of a benevolent god in the vernacular sense, not in some philosophical hypothetical sense. God is good, merciful, loving and just. Not in a cosmic way, but in a personal, earthly way. This is what is taught by religion. Raping and murdering are bad. Religion teaches this also. Therefore raping and murdering cannot be sanctioned by a benevolent god. If god isn't benevolent as we understand benevolence, then there's no point in saying god is good. Might as well just say that god exists, but that we have no knowledge of whether he is good, evil, ambivalent, or has any "emotions" or preferences at all.

I was addressing very specifically the "atheist" argument of the evil paradox. If a person uses the existence of "evil" to prove there is no god at all, I believe it is a stupid argument. As I said in the part of my quote that you cut, I do believe the paradox can be used to prove that most religions are not internally consistent. I am being very specific in the use of atheist, in that they believe that there is no god, they lack the proof for that just as much as theists lack the proof of their own god. My argument is that there could be a flying spaghetti monster who views our current world as his most perfect vision, and then the evil paradox is useless, because there is no "evil."

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's no surprise why so many people avoid these threads. At least so far the professed atheists have been the least tolerant...

The clearest, most convincing argument I can provide you with that your reasoning is totally false is:

I absolutely don't believe in God. I absolutely believe that existence has no "purpose" or "meaning" whatsoever. I absolutely believe that when I die, nothing physical and nothing spiritual will remain of me. Nothing.

Yet I enjoy my life, and want to live as full and enjoyable life as I can.

What possible response can you have to this information, other than to realize that your assumptions are completely incorrect?

Ah, so he who tastes knows. Have you no concern that you are one of a billion clowns subject to the extreme fallibility of the human mind? If so you've fooled me because it sounds spot on that you know what you're talking about. But that's not so hard for me because I KNOW what you are saying.

I don't know anything; I believe a great deal, though. And unless Skoorb takes the position that I'm lying about what I believe and what my reaction to those beliefs is (or alternatively, he insists that I'm deluded and don't know what I believe), then he's confronted with a perfect counterexample to his earlier assertions.

If I were he, I'd be scratching my head and wondering how to reconcile this new information with my existing belief system. But I think he'll just choose to ignore me, the typical response of true believers when confronted by inconvenient truths.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: n yusef
The principle is very simple: Murder is wrong, not because a god says so, but because someone was killed. Theft is wrong, not because a god says so, but because someone was stolen from. A liberal arts education crystallized my beliefs, but the foundation is inherent to any secular society, and (I had assumed) to the psyche of its members.

I haven't really read up on this at all, but you just seem to be begging the question. You assume that someone dying is bad, but everyone dies, and even we believe it is not always bad. How do we know that someone dying is bad, and not good? If no one died, and people continued to reproduce we would be reduced to a very pitiful state, I believe very much that in general people dying is a good thing. There must be something more special about the death of a person that makes death at the hands of another an "evil."

Our species has come to know from eons of experience that the loss of a mate/child/parent/relative/friend because of death is emotionally painful, and often reduces the likelihood that the family unit will survive. We instinctively seek to avoid such negative consequences of death, just as we instinctively pull our hand back from the flame.

Thus, we know "dying is bad" because of how it affects us. Is it so difficult to understand, then, how virtually all human societies could evolve laws to bar murder?

Edit: As to "good" deaths. It's pretty easy to understand how the death of an aged relative who was a burden could feel like a relief. Again, eons of experience inform our collective morality. God isn't needed.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: n yusef
The principle is very simple: Murder is wrong, not because a god says so, but because someone was killed. Theft is wrong, not because a god says so, but because someone was stolen from. A liberal arts education crystallized my beliefs, but the foundation is inherent to any secular society, and (I had assumed) to the psyche of its members.

I haven't really read up on this at all, but you just seem to be begging the question. You assume that someone dying is bad, but everyone dies, and even we believe it is not always bad. How do we know that someone dying is bad, and not good? If no one died, and people continued to reproduce we would be reduced to a very pitiful state, I believe very much that in general people dying is a good thing. There must be something more special about the death of a person that makes death at the hands of another an "evil."

Our species has come to know from eons of experience that the loss of a mate/child/parent/relative/friend because of death is emotionally painful, and often reduces the likelihood that the family unit will survive. We instinctively seek to avoid such negative consequences of death, just as we instinctively pull our hand back from the flame.

Thus, we know "dying is bad" because of how it affects us. Is it so difficult to understand, then, how virtually all human societies could evolve laws to bar murder?

Edit: As to "good" deaths. It's pretty easy to understand how the death of an aged relative who was a burden could feel like a relief. Again, eons of experience inform our collective morality. God isn't needed.

Eon's of experience did not inform us that slavery was bad. If the argument you make is that eons of experience and historical beliefs in something being bad determines what is moral, and immoral, then would slavery be moral, due to the fact that for the vast majority of human existence it has been believed to be ok? If it is not moral, what makes it not moral, eons of experience don't seem to bring us to that conclusion.

 

[imported_inspire]

The question of God's existence always begs the question of the origin of the universe for me.

My background in Mathematics leads me to believe that something is out there. Scientists have, so far, constructed theories and models whereby the Universe could feasibly have come into being. The Uncertainty Principle is a wacky theory. But somehow, the laws of the Universe, even the Uncertainty Principle itself must have had an origin.

This regress of physics down to its core, whether finite or infinite, is, in and of itself, a god - an origin. It has imposed on us its order.

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Mods, I figured this was the best place to make such a thread, as we've had similar threads here before.

I've noticed in my discussions with atheists that a particular point they make is this: That a good and loving God would not subject his creations to pain, suffering, death, and the worst that the world can do to us. Therefore, even if a God does exist, he isn't the benevolent one that Christians believe in.

The problem of pain has been written on in volumes which could stack to the moon. What I really want to know about is its philosophical opposite: the problem of pleasure.

Why is sex fun? Surely, pleasure is not a prerequisite to procreation, as in the cases of the vast majority of other species. Why do we enjoy eating? Why do we enjoy looking at beautiful things? In other words, in a world which is ultimately meaningless, why does pleasure exist?

It seems to be the philosophical equivalent to Atheists to what the problem of pain is for Christians.

I don't know about the arguments that invoke pain or pleasure or enjoyment, but clearly any invocation of these is an exercise in gold-plated anthropomorphism.

If you consider that the vast majority of living organisms do not procreate via sexual mechanisms and don't have a central nervous system...it does obviate and close the door on any kind of thought experiment that might purport to extrapolate any universal truth from the representation of pain or joy.

It should go without saying that I am leaving aside the disconnect between (A) pain and pleasure, for which there is objective evidence vs. (B) the existence of God for which there is no objective evidence.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

And to come full circle, children in Sudan are captured, forced to rape their parents, watch their parents be killed or be forced to kill them, and sometimes eat their parents dead bodies and that of their siblings. I don't think a pretty sunset makes up for that.

For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

HUH?

 

[blackangst1]

Interesting thread. In regards to the OP, this line:

That a good and loving God would not subject his creations to pain, suffering, death, and the worst that the world can do to us. Therefore, even if a God does exist, he isn't the benevolent one that Christians believe in.

the fact is, this isnt a biblical teaching, therefore fallacy on the part of athiests. Being a Christian isnt about what WE think is fair and just, no. In fact, to summarize Lamentations, the rain falls on the just and the wicked, good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people, and vice versa. Being a Christian isnt about having special priveledges in life.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Interesting thread. In regards to the OP, this line:

That a good and loving God would not subject his creations to pain, suffering, death, and the worst that the world can do to us. Therefore, even if a God does exist, he isn't the benevolent one that Christians believe in.

the fact is, this isnt a biblical teaching, therefore fallacy on the part of athiests. Being a Christian isnt about what WE think is fair and just, no. In fact, to summarize Lamentations, the rain falls on the just and the wicked, good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people, and vice versa. Being a Christian isnt about having special priveledges in life.

No one said it did. They were discussing the alleged Creation and Humanity as a whole.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Interesting thread. In regards to the OP, this line:

That a good and loving God would not subject his creations to pain, suffering, death, and the worst that the world can do to us. Therefore, even if a God does exist, he isn't the benevolent one that Christians believe in.

the fact is, this isnt a biblical teaching, therefore fallacy on the part of athiests. Being a Christian isnt about what WE think is fair and just, no. In fact, to summarize Lamentations, the rain falls on the just and the wicked, good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people, and vice versa. Being a Christian isnt about having special priveledges in life.

No one said it did. They were discussing the alleged Creation and Humanity as a whole.

Im aware of that. If you read it, I was commenting ont he OP. Let me spell it out. Athiests, according to the OP, wonder why a loving God would subject those He loves and who loves Him to pain and suffering, insinuating that a loving God wouldnt do that, therefore there must not be a loving God. That is the fallacy I was addressing. Sorry if it wasnt clear.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Interesting thread. In regards to the OP, this line:

That a good and loving God would not subject his creations to pain, suffering, death, and the worst that the world can do to us. Therefore, even if a God does exist, he isn't the benevolent one that Christians believe in.

the fact is, this isnt a biblical teaching, therefore fallacy on the part of athiests. Being a Christian isnt about what WE think is fair and just, no. In fact, to summarize Lamentations, the rain falls on the just and the wicked, good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people, and vice versa. Being a Christian isnt about having special priveledges in life.

I'm an atheist and at the last "meeting" I never heard anybody talking about "pain"

It's a fucking stupid idea.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

And to come full circle, children in Sudan are captured, forced to rape their parents, watch their parents be killed or be forced to kill them, and sometimes eat their parents dead bodies and that of their siblings. I don't think a pretty sunset makes up for that.

For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

Isn't the conflict in Sudan pit Muslim vs non-Muslims? Muslims are atheists now?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Isn't the conflict in Sudan pit Muslim vs non-Muslims? Muslims are atheists now?

Well, it's more like Muslims of a sort (the kind that were willing to give up bin Laden for the right price) vs. Christians of a sort and even a bigger stretch and animists, but REALLY more to the point, lighter skinned "Arabs" vs. darker skinned "Africans."

It really all comes down to regionalism, and tribes.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Interesting thread. In regards to the OP, this line:

That a good and loving God would not subject his creations to pain, suffering, death, and the worst that the world can do to us. Therefore, even if a God does exist, he isn't the benevolent one that Christians believe in.

the fact is, this isnt a biblical teaching, therefore fallacy on the part of athiests. Being a Christian isnt about what WE think is fair and just, no. In fact, to summarize Lamentations, the rain falls on the just and the wicked, good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people, and vice versa. Being a Christian isnt about having special priveledges in life.

No one said it did. They were discussing the alleged Creation and Humanity as a whole.

Im aware of that. If you read it, I was commenting ont he OP. Let me spell it out. Athiests, according to the OP, wonder why a loving God would subject those He loves and who loves Him to pain and suffering, insinuating that a loving God wouldnt do that, therefore there must not be a loving God. That is the fallacy I was addressing. Sorry if it wasnt clear.

"God" Loves all, according to the PR.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

It seems to be the philosophical equivalent to Atheists to what the problem of pain is for Christians.

No, it doesn't, because Atheism is not a comprehensive theory of reality that should be able to explain things like pleasure.

You, in your apparently perpetual and impervious ignorance, seem to think that evolution and atheism are identical. They most certainly are not -- not that contiuing to repeat this to you has seemed to make any headway against the bottomless pit of misinformation you've crammed in your head.

ROLF!!!!!

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Isn't the conflict in Sudan pit Muslim vs non-Muslims? Muslims are atheists now?

Well, it's more like Muslims of a sort (the kind that were willing to give up bin Laden for the right price) vs. Christians of a sort and even a bigger stretch and animists, but REALLY more to the point, lighter skinned "Arabs" vs. darker skinned "Africans."

It really all comes down to regionalism, and tribes.

and then family - whether worthy or not. It seems that we humans need something to defend and protect no matter what the substance.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Well, it's more like Muslims of a sort (the kind that were willing to give up bin Laden for the right price) vs. Christians of a sort and even a bigger stretch and animists, but REALLY more to the point, lighter skinned "Arabs" vs. darker skinned "Africans."

It really all comes down to regionalism, and tribes.

Its more like over 20 different tribes of all sorts battling over territorial control as drought is shrinking the fertile land and expanding the desert, causing as much conflict within the broad religious an ethnic groups you mention as between them. The last part of your comment sums the situation in the Sudan up reasonably well though.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

And to come full circle, children in Sudan are captured, forced to rape their parents, watch their parents be killed or be forced to kill them, and sometimes eat their parents dead bodies and that of their siblings. I don't think a pretty sunset makes up for that.

For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

if you can't understand why people don't just shoot themselves in the head, it isnt them with the problem

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Mods, I figured this was the best place to make such a thread, as we've had similar threads here before.

I've noticed in my discussions with atheists that a particular point they make is this: That a good and loving God would not subject his creations to pain, suffering, death, and the worst that the world can do to us. Therefore, even if a God does exist, he isn't the benevolent one that Christians believe in.

The problem of pain has been written on in volumes which could stack to the moon. What I really want to know about is its philosophical opposite: the problem of pleasure.

Why is sex fun? Surely, pleasure is not a prerequisite to procreation, as in the cases of the vast majority of other species. Why do we enjoy eating? Why do we enjoy looking at beautiful things? In other words, in a world which is ultimately meaningless, why does pleasure exist?

It seems to be the philosophical equivalent to Atheists to what the problem of pain is for Christians.

The pain of life only questions believers understanding or definition of their deity. Judeo-Christian-Muslims have invented Satan to explain life's pain.

The pleasures of life are not proof of the existence of a deity.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Skoorb

And to come full circle, children in Sudan are captured, forced to rape their parents, watch their parents be killed or be forced to kill them, and sometimes eat their parents dead bodies and that of their siblings. I don't think a pretty sunset makes up for that.

For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

if you can't understand why people don't just shoot themselves in the head, it isnt them with the problem

Reading comprehension. Learn it, love it. I have said people don't because I believe they live their lives inconsistent with their claimed beliefs.

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: inspire
This regress of physics down to its core, whether finite or infinite, is, in and of itself, a god - an origin. It has imposed on us its order.

I really don't like this comment at all. For one, you're just shifting the definition of god. I could say god is my coffee table, and then of course god exists. When people battle the existence of god we battle the existence of the three pronged god: the creator, the father, the tinkerer. Now you're giving up on the latter two and going with the first.

All your definition does is create a new god of the blanks. You don't understand how there can (or can't) be an origin, so you call it a god. Why is it so hard for people to just say "I don't know!"?

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Skoorb

And to come full circle, children in Sudan are captured, forced to rape their parents, watch their parents be killed or be forced to kill them, and sometimes eat their parents dead bodies and that of their siblings. I don't think a pretty sunset makes up for that.

For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

if you can't understand why people don't just shoot themselves in the head, it isnt them with the problem

Reading comprehension. Learn it, love it. I have said people don't because I believe they live their lives inconsistent with their claimed beliefs.

What belief is this and how do they live their lives inconsistent with it? Can we get an example?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Skoorb

And to come full circle, children in Sudan are captured, forced to rape their parents, watch their parents be killed or be forced to kill them, and sometimes eat their parents dead bodies and that of their siblings. I don't think a pretty sunset makes up for that.

For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

if you can't understand why people don't just shoot themselves in the head, it isnt them with the problem

Reading comprehension. Learn it, love it. I have said people don't because I believe they live their lives inconsistent with their claimed beliefs.

What belief is this and how do they live their lives inconsistent with it? Can we get an example?

I'm sure I left some above. Really I have mostly left this thread because it was taking up too much time. I've said my piece in various ways. Some didn't get that at all, some did a little, I have no good reason to keep repeating it in variants :0